Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Habitual Residence Test

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many outstanding appeals there are under the habitual residence test; and if he will make a statement. [24669]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): Statistics on appeals are collected by the Independent Tribunal Service which does not record the reason for the appeal.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister agree with the view of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that, because there is no straightforward definition of the habitual residence test, many cases have to go to the adjudication officer and are ultimately revised? Is that not an absolute waste of money and time, and does the Minister agree that it prevents people who are entitled to benefit from getting it as speedily as they should? Should not there be an urgent review to remedy that?

Mr. Evans: It is not a waste of time: it is an important measure to save public money and to prevent the kind of abuse that happened when Spanish holidaymakers were claiming income support in England. The habitual residence test is well founded in European law and we are entitled to introduce it to protect the British taxpayer. Nobody has come up with a better alternative suggestion, and I can only conclude from the hon. Gentleman's words that his party proposes to abolish this necessary protection for the British taxpayer.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that most people believe that ending benefit tourism is a great bonus for the taxpayer? Is it because of a desire to help benefit tourists that the Labour party proposes to get rid of child benefit for those who are over the age of 16?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend speaks on St. George's day for England, as ever. The second part of his question contains a most interesting challenge, and we wait to see what Labour Front-Bench spokesmen can possibly give by way of an explanation.

Mr. Bradley: May I press the Minister a little further on the figures that are contained in the excellent report by

the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux? Is he aware that well over 5,000 British nationals have been left without financial support because of the habitual residence test—a test that the Government said was meant to root out only benefit tourism? Is it not clear that the test is not rooting out those who do not genuinely deserve such benefits, but that only British nationals who are returning home are being hit by the policy? Will he again review the test to ensure that such British nationals receive income support and other benefits to which they are genuinely entitled?

Mr. Evans: All aspects of policy are always under review, but this policy appears to be working. Between August 1994 and February 1996, 91,424 British nationals passed the test and 9,191 failed it; 13,392 European economic area nationals passed it while 13,487 in that category failed it. The system protects British interests, and nobody has yet produced an alternative that is acceptable in European law.

State Pension

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of the state pension (a) at present and (b) in 1979 in real terms. [24670]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Since 1978–79, expenditure on state pensions has increased in real terms by about a third—from £22.6 billion to £30.1 billion in 1995–96.

Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the earnings link was restored that figure would be increased by about £8 billion a year, which is equivalent to some 5p on the basic rate of income tax or to an increase in VAT to 22.5 per cent? Is it not a cruel hoax on pensioners to suggest that that earnings link could be restored, as was promised by the Labour candidate in Hastings and Rye?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It will be interesting to see whether Labour Front-Bench spokesmen repudiate the promises that have been made by Labour candidates in Hastings and Rye and elsewhere which would cost the British taxpayer the equivalent of several pence on the basic rate of tax. Until they repudiate that policy it will hang round their necks like an albatross.

Mr. Sheerman: What does it say about poverty in our country when, in 1979, the state pension was 23 per cent. of average earnings and is now 17 per cent? That represents something chilling for elderly people in our country.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member seems to think that pensioners should and do rely solely on the basic pension. I am happy to say that an increasing proportion have additional resources on top of that. As a result, pensioners' incomes as a whole have risen more rapidly than those of the population as a whole. We have made extra provision for those at the bottom: we have provided £1.2 billion a year extra through income-related benefits for people who, by misfortune, do not have any resources of their own on top of basic pension. Our record stands in good comparison with anything that the last Labour Government achieved.

Pensioner Incomes

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the bottom tenth of incomes was accounted for by pensioners in 1979; and what is the equivalent figure for the latest year for which figures are available. [24671]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): In 1979, pensioners represented 31 per cent. of the bottom 10th of the income distribution, after housing costs. By 1992–93, that figure had fallen to 8 per cent.

Mr. Butler: That shows that not just in absolute, but in relative terms, under this Government, the treatment of pensioners has been far better than under the preceding Government and far better than pensioners could hope for under any succeeding Labour Government, were such a disaster to hit the elderly population again. When my hon. Friend and I come to draw our pensions, will they be funded substantially by private pension funds, which exist in Britain, but not elsewhere in Europe? Can he put a figure on that?

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. The Government's policy is to maintain the basic state pension's value, to encourage the private sector and to target help on people most in need. The amount targeted has already increased by £1.2 billion since 1988. The number of pensioners with occupational pensions is up from 43 per cent. in 1979 to 66 per cent. among the recently retired, with an average £75 per week for that occupational pensioner. My hon. Friend can do the mathematics himself, but, on such a rate of increase, the Conservative Government have given pensioners a better future than they would have had under Labour

Mr. Frank Field: Which poor people have stepped into the shoes of pensioners who have left the lowest decile?

Mr. Heald: There are those who say that a pot is half full and those who say that it is half empty. These days, the hon. Gentleman is obviously putting himself in the latter category. That is rather a change of heart—he used to be a bit more optimistic. During the 1980s, pensioners have improved their position. Their average incomes are up by 50 per cent. That is an answer in itself. The pensioners have done better under the Conservatives.

Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the greatest contributions that a Government can make to pensioners' real incomes is to keep prices low? Will he remind me at what point in recent years inflation reached a level of over 27 per cent?

Mr. Heald: I am happy to remind my hon. Friend that the last Labour Government put this country in that parlous position, robbing pensioners of their savings through high inflation. The Government have had the longest period of sustained inflation—[Interruption.] Sorry, low inflation—for 50 years. Opposition Members may laugh, but it would be the longest period of sustained inflation if they ever had a chance to run the country.

Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that approximately one third of eligible pensioners are not claiming

income-related benefit to which they are entitled and that, of those, 114,000 are in the north-west? Will he join Age Concern and other pension organisations in an awareness campaign so that pensioners take up their rights?

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. This morning, I met Age Concern and was able to discuss that issue, among others. The Government are spending about £25 million on giving information about benefits. They are providing information to 80, 000 outlets about the benefits that are available to people. Obviously, it is important that the information on the new benefit payment cards is clear and helpful to pensioners. We discussed that. Taken together, the measures represent a substantial commitment to telling pensioners what benefits are available to them. The Government are committed to that.

Mr. Wicks: Is not the Minister deliberately ignoring the facts about the poorest people in Britain? Is it not true that in Tory Britain poverty now wears a young face, often a child's face? There are 3 million families with children—[Interruption.] I shall repeat; there are 3 million families with children in the bottom tenth of income distribution. Would the Minister care to bring up a child on income support levels? Why have the Government deliberately created mass child poverty?

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman puts his argument at the most exaggerated level possible, but that is typical of the Labour party. Only the other day the shadow Chancellor explained his ideas about child benefit for 16-year-olds and said that 80 per cent. of the children of unskilled parents leave school at 16. That information is 20 years old. Under the Conservatives, 50 per cent. or more of those children go on to further education. That just shows that the Labour party does not get its facts right. On poverty, under Labour—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be responsible for Government policy.

Mr. Heald: I was asked about poverty and the hon. Gentleman said that there was poverty in Britain. It is worth making the point that there is a difference between income support levels and absolute poverty. One of the points that is made constantly by Opposition spokesmen, as it was a moment ago, is that poverty can be measured against income support levels. That is ludicrous because it would mean that every time we increased income support, we increased poverty.

Reforms (Savings)

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what annual savings will result from his reforms by the end of the century; and what estimate he has made of savings by 2020. [24672]

Mr. Lilley: The major reforms I have announced to date are expected to reduce public spending by £5 billion a year in today's prices by the turn of the century. The level of savings will increase to £11 billion a year by 2020, and to £15 billion in the longer term.

Mr. Whittingdale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those extremely impressive figures, but will he confirm


that when he seeks to find further savings in his budget, he will only consider reforms in child benefit that would result in leaving more money in the hands of families by reducing their taxes? Will he confirm that he will not adopt any policies that would simply result in the money saved being spent on other public expenditure programmes, as is proposed by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)?

Mr. Lilley: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our policies, unlike those of the Opposition which are based on attacking and trying to curb areas of growth, leave money in the pockets of the taxpayers where it can fructify, reward them for work and enable them to look after themselves. The Labour party puts forward proposals only to finance higher spending by Labour Governments. It bases those policies on false facts.
I reiterate that the recent proposals by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) were based on his claim that only 20 per cent. of the children of unskilled parents stayed on at school. That figure is over 20 years out of date. It relates to the period 1974–78 when there was a Labour Government and when it was true that only 20 per cent. of such children stayed on at school. Now, substantially more than half such children stay on. The Labour party's proposals would cast us back to the dark ages by penalising to the tune of £560 parents who let their children stay on at school. The Labour party does not like it but I challenge the Opposition spokesman to withdraw the false figures given by his colleague.

Mr. Ashton: The Secretary of State complained about figures being 20 years out of date. What sort of figures can they possibly be for the year 2020? He is using figures that could be said to be more than 20 years out of date. When he produced those estimates, what figures did he include for women having to work beyond 60 before receiving the old age pension? That is where many of the savings come from.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman may find it difficult to distinguish between the future and the past, but most of us do not. He is quite right that if we equalised the state pension age at 60, which is effectively what the Labour Front-Bench team proposes, instead of 65, which is what we propose, the difference in cost would be £13 billion a year. If he wants up-to-date figures, I should tell him that the other extraordinary mistake made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was to say that 25 per cent. of 17-year-olds staying on at school were in private education. He said:
child support is a subsidy for the school fees of the wealthy rather than an incentive to assist the education of the very poor.
That is nonsense. If child benefit were taken away from school leavers, there would be every likelihood that the proportion of less well-off children staying on at school would be greatly enhanced. Will the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) repudiate the bogus figures given by his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East?

Sir Norman Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when I was Secretary of State for Social Services, I was told by a long succession of Labour spokesmen how wrong and evil it would be to change, alter or abolish any

part of child benefit? In view of the Labour party's change of policy, is it not therefore right for those spokesmen to consider their positions?

Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. For once I entirely agree with the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Brent, North (Mr. Livingstone), who point out in The Guardian today the fallacy of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East's figures, and agree with us that we should be encouraging people to stay on at school to get the qualifications that will enable them to support themselves and get good jobs, rather than discouraging them from doing so and costing the taxpayer more in the long run by being on the dole.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that his reform of the invalidity benefit system and the introduction of incapacity benefit has so far cost £55 million in bureaucracy? In order to recoup that, 85,000 disabled people who would otherwise have been eligible for invalidity benefit have already lost out. Disabled people are paying the price for the changes. Will he also acknowledge that the introduction of the form for the all-work test and the requirement to return it within six weeks has led to 6,000 people losing the benefit to which they are entitled because they are unable to deal with it? Is that not totally disgraceful?

Mr. Lilley: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has had a long-standing concern for issues that affect disabled people, but he must recognise that it is right that we try to focus the immense amount of help that we give in incapacity benefit, the cost of which exceeds the entire amount spent on further and higher education, on those who are genuinely unable to work due to their medical condition. That is the test's objective. We want to help back to work those who are fit enough through the back-to-work benefits. I cannot see how the Gentleman can disagree with that principle.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: While my right hon. Friend searches for benefits to target in order to ensure that we pay social security to people who really need it, does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Labour party wants to target the less well-off and to rob 16-year-olds who want to stay on in education of more than £500 a year? Is it not notable that the Labour Front-Bench team will not stand up to defend that today?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. It is very significant that Labour Back-Benchers will not stand up to defend the proposal either. They look extremely embarrassed. Some of them have already voiced publicly their opposition to it. It is a major blunder by the Labour Front-Bench team because it is saying that if parents encourage their children to stay on at school, just one child will cost them £560 a year, and two children in that age bracket will take £1,000 out of their net income. That is a huge penalty for bettering oneself, but it is what the Labour party stands for.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Secretary of State accept that his figures are bogus? In citing figures for young people who stay on in full-time education, he is conflating unskilled families and semi-skilled families. He should


get his figures right before he starts swinging insults across the Dispatch Box. Does he also accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is interested in ensuring that more people, rather than fewer, from families with low-income backgrounds can stay on in full-time education?
In the so-called savings that the Secretary of State is trying to make, will he tell us whether the freeline service that provides advice to claimants will be axed? Will that not be utterly counter-productive, like so many of his other measures? There will be greater difficulty and distress for claimants, and less accurate applications will cause greater difficulty and expense for the Department.
We know from last week that the Secretary of State believes that poverty exists only in the third world and not here in Britain. The Opposition know how wrong he is. Is it not the case that by closing the advice line, the right hon. Gentleman is not only again ignoring the needs of the poor, but trying to ignore their very existence?

Mr. Lilley: Oh dear. The hon. Gentleman does need help with the facts. Afterwards I shall be happy to give him a copy of the table from which I obtained my information, and one of the table from which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East obtained his information. He will see that the Opposition figure relates to children who left school between 1974 and 1978, whereas mine comes from the youth cohort study of children dated 1994, which shows that a significant majority of children over 16 whose parents were unskilled manual workers were staying on at school. Things have improved dramatically since the Labour Government were in power.
As for the helpline, I shall give the hon. Gentleman a copy of the questionnaire that we are sending to individual branches as we examine whether changes should be made in our helpline arrangements. We study such matters and examine them; we get the facts and then we make our policy. I shall not tell the hon. Gentleman what the policy outcome will be until we have assembled the facts.
If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about poverty, and believes that the basic safety net provided by income support is inadequate, will he tell the House, either now or before the general election, by how much he intends to increase it?

Fraud

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what priority he attaches to tackling fraud in his social security reforms. [24673]

Mr. Lilley: Tackling fraud remains my top priority. We are stepping up the fight against fraud with the spotlight on benefit cheats campaign. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already announced month-long anti-fraud campaigns in Croydon, Haringey, Enfield, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Westminster and Camden. More areas will be announced soon.

Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be encouraged to know that he has the full support of my hard-working constituents, who resent their hard-earned tax going to support spongers and other people who break the law. Can

he assure us that increasingly staff will get out of their offices and visit claimants' homes so that they can check out and root out the fraudsters?

Mr. Lilley: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are increasing the number of home visits and other checks. There were about 1.5 million last year, including fraud visits, and there will be substantially more next year. My hon. Friend is right that the greatest resentment caused by fraud and abuse is felt by hard-working people and honest claimants, who constitute the majority both of workers and claimants. We represent them, because we are the party of the hard-working class.

Mr. Barry Jones: With the campaign against fraud in mind, will the Government resist the temptation to close yet more benefit offices? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that such closures lead to the prospect of more fraud? In particular, will he consider the Government's plans to close the benefit office in Rhyl in north Wales? Bearing in mind the distress of the staff and the many thousands of people who do not want that office to be taken out of operation, does he agree that if he wants less fraud he needs more offices to tackle the problem locally?

Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly look closely when and if a decision has to be made about the office in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He has always treated me fairly; I shall happily treat him and his constituents fairly on that issue. We try to make proper judgments about deciding locations. We are trying to get more officers out visiting people in their homes and making more checks to ensure that we are giving the right money to the right people at the right time. We do not automatically assume that a given number of offices has to be maintained in perpetuity.

Mr. John Greenway: When will my right hon. Friend introduce a benefit payment card to end the abuse of multiple social security benefit applications?

Mr. Lilley: We hope to start the introduction of a benefit payment card this autumn. I hope to be able to make an announcement about the consortium selected for its introduction under the private finance initiative in a month or two's time. I know that there will be great interest in that and that there is much support for ensuring that we eliminate fraudulent abuse of our present payments system.

Child Support Agency

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further plans he has to reform the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [24674]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I have recently announced a new independent complaints adjudicator, improvements in the agency's compensation scheme, and interest on maintenance payments not passed promptly to parents with care. All those measures build on major legislative changes introduced over the past year.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is not the Child Support Agency still a discredited agency that has lost public confidence? We


want people to be treated sensibly. What proposals has the Minister for ensuring that CSA personnel treat people sensibly? I have several constituents who, when they ring up to try to find out what is going on, are treated appallingly. Will he ensure that the CSA improves?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been a considerable increase in the training that all child support officers undergo. I hope that he will also have seen today's announcement of the Child Support Agency's results for the past year, which show that it has made a massive, clear and significant improvement in virtually all aspects of its work. I hope that he would wish to join the whole House in paying tribute to its chief executive and all its staff. In the light of the figures, they deserve a pat on the back, not least in view of the vile abuse—and worse—that they have had to put up with from organised resisters.

Mrs. Roe: Can my hon. Friend spell out how much extra maintenance would be required if Labour's plans to deprive parents of pupils aged 16 or over of £500 a year in child benefit were implemented? Would that not mean that children from broken homes would be the least likely to stay on at school to gain essential qualifications?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes her point most eloquently. Last year, the Child Support Agency was set a target to arrange or collect £300 million and get it through to the children. It has exceeded that target. In the past month alone, it collected more money than in the whole of its first year of operation. That is a sign of the huge improvement in the performance of the CSA.

Mr. Hain: Despite the attentive replies that the Minister gives me on many of the cases that I put to him, does he agree that the CSA still acts very oppressively to many ordinary couples who have been become the victims of a monster that was designed to chase errant fathers? It is still not chasing them, let alone catching them. Instead, it leaves many honest couples at their wit's end as they grapple with the enormous maintenance payments that are forced on them by the agency.

Mr. Mitchell: I have examined several of the cases that the hon. Gentleman has brought to me. Much of what he says is no longer accurate. In some 77 per cent. of the cases that are taken on by the Child Support Agency, the parent with care is receiving nothing—not a penny. The tremendous strides that have been made by the agency in the past year are getting the funds through to the children. Since the agency began, it has traced 133,000 absent parents, principally fathers. In the past year alone, it managed to trace 55,000 of them. In the key areas where the agency has been required to improve, last year's figures show that it certainly has.

Pensioner Incomes

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners had

incomes in the top half of the national income distribution in (a) 1979 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [24675]

Mr. Heald: In 1979, 25 per cent. of pensioners were in the top half of the income distribution, after housing costs. By 1992–93, that had increased to 35 per cent.

Mr. Coombs: Can my hon. Friend confirm that now more than 20 million people receive income from an occupational pension scheme and 66 per cent. of recently retired pensioners receive money from such a scheme, compared with 55 per cent. in 1979? Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Pensions Act 1995 provides a still more secure framework for the regulation of occupational pension schemes?

Mr. Heald: I can confirm those things. It is worth noting that others have searched the world for a system that would be better, but still have not found one.

Mr. Denham: While it is true that the wealthiest pensioners today are significantly wealthier than their predecessors—I do not begrudge them their good fortune—the poorest pensioners are not wealthier than their predecessors. Does the Minister have no positive response to Age Concern's "Your Rights Week"? More than 600,000 pensioners do not receive even the income support to which they are entitled. They are going without an average of £14 per week. Why, under this Conservative Government, is it left to charities such as Age Concern to tell Britain's poorest pensioners how they can get the help to which they are entitled?

Mr. Heald: The bottom 20 per cent. of pensioners have seen their incomes rise in real terms by 20 per cent. under the Conservatives and their savings have not been robbed by inflation as they were under Labour.

Pensions (Updating)

Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the savings to public funds arising from the decision to update pensions in line with prices rather than earnings. [24676]

Mr. Heald: If pensions had continued to be increased in line with the higher of earnings or prices since 1980, the additional cost to public funds would be £7.4 billion in 1996–97.

Mr. Leigh: With the Transport and General Workers Union urging my hon. Friend to restore the earnings link—something which is still Labour party policy and would cost £7.4 billion—does my hon. Friend agree that the advice that he is receiving from the Opposition is not so much to think the unthinkable as to spend the unaffordable?

Mr. Heald: I certainly agree with that. It is true that Bill Morris has recently written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on behalf of the TGWU calling for the restoration of the earnings link. On a historical note, Jack Jones recently visited me and advocated the same


thing. So the TGWU, past and present, is united. We ought to bear in mind that the Labour party and the unions are linked, and that that is an unaffordable link for Britain.

Mr. Cousins: How much has been saved by uprating the allowance for the over-85s not with prices, not with earnings, but with thin air—nothing at all—during the entire period of the Conservative Government?

Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government's policy is to target help on those most in need and, through the income support system, the Government have done that. Indeed, £1.2 billion extra has been provided and the pensioner premium for the over-80s is £37 per week for a couple. That provides real help to those who need it.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that taxpayer spending on basic pensions is at a record level even in real terms and that, as a result of the Government's reforms, not only do 66 per cent. of pensioners retire with an occupational pension but 75 per cent. of them retire with savings which are protected against inflation? Will he remind the House that the average income of pensioners has risen faster than the average rate of inflation—and, indeed, earnings—over the past 15 years?

Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend is right to say that the position of pensioners has been improved because incomes have increased by more than 50 per cent. on average since 1979 and as a result of a change in the living standards of pensioners. Let us take consumer durables as an example. In 1979, only 57 per cent. of pensioners had a telephone; the figure is now up to 93 per cent. In 1979, 46 per cent. had central heating; now almost 80 per cent. do. The proportion who have a fridge freezer has increased to 99 per cent. and those who have a washing machine has increased from 64 per cent. to 82 per cent. So it goes on. The living standards of our pensioners have been protected under the Conservatives.

Funeral Expenses

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent changes have been introduced to the social security funeral payments fund scheme; and what effects these will have for those bereaved who have need to claim support for funeral expenses. [24677]

Mr. Roger Evans: The scheme introduced in June 1995 covers the reasonable costs of a dignified funeral where someone has good cause for taking responsibility but has insufficient funds to meet such a large expense. The allowable costs provide up to £500 for the funeral director's charges, plus all the necessary disbursements for either a burial or a cremation.

Mr. O'Hara: Does the Minister recognise that £500 is not enough to fund a decent funeral? The funeral directors association, in a wide-ranging survey of 658 of its members, found that the lowest cost at which a funeral could be provided was £568 and that the average cost was £700. Is that not the final indignity inflicted on the destitute by the Government? Is the Minister not ashamed

of that? Will he give a commitment to the House urgently to review funeral costs and the arrangements for funding them through the social fund?

Mr. Evans: The social fund is paying for one out of every 10 funerals, which is an enormous market share. The cost of funerals financed by the social fund has increased substantially, from £18 million in 1988–89, to £63 million for the year before the one in which we reformed the scheme. Funeral directors were charging fees that were rising considerably faster than inflation. The reformed scheme gives the funeral director a reasonable rate of remuneration, and ensures that the deceased's family can elect for a burial—which generally costs much more than a cremation—if they so wish and that the cost of it will be met in full.

Old People

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to provide for the effects of the increasing number of old people and declining number of people of working age. [24678]

Mr. Lilley: The number of people over current pension ages is set to rise from 10.4 million now to 15.8 million by 2030. That would have placed an excessive burden on the working population, with a ratio of one pensioner for every 2.1 people of working age. By equalising the state pension age at 65, we shall have ensured a more sustainable ratio of 2.6 workers for each pensioner by 2030.

Mr. Brazier: Is not the United Kingdom in vastly better shape to meet this challenge than other parts of Europe because of the £600 billion that we have invested in private sector pension schemes? I urge my hon. Friend to look hard at the Goode recommendations and other possible measures to protect those precious funds from the Robert Maxwells of the world.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right: we are better placed than most other countries in Europe to meet the pensions burden of the next century because we have invested some £600 billion in occupational and personal pension schemes. That is not just more than any other country in Europe, it is more than all the other countries in Europe put together. It means that we can face the future without the crippling burden of taxation that they will have to put up with. We have tried to strengthen confidence in occupational schemes, which was damaged by Robert Maxwell—a Labour Member of Parliament and the only socialist who has ever taken a serious interest in private pension schemes. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order, as it is much too noisy. That is unfair to hon. Members who are putting questions.

Child Support Agency

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the length of time taken by the Child Support Agency to process assessments in each year since 1994. [24679]

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Assessments will inevitably take longer if one or other parent raises queries, but


almost 50 per cent. of maintenance assessments are currently completed within 26 weeks. If both parents co-operate, the agency expects to complete the process in six to 12 weeks.

Mrs. Clwyd: I believe that the agency deserves a kick up the backside for the way in which it has treated my constituent, Mr. Philip Jones. He has waited for over six months to have his case reassessed. At the moment, he is expected to live on £8.27 a week after he has paid his bills. His house was threatened with repossession because he could not pay his mortgage; he lives in one room because he cannot afford to pay the fuel bills; his parents, who are elderly and on a pension, feed him; and he suffers considerable stress. If anything happens to Mr. Jones, I shall blame the Government.

Mr. Mitchell: I have looked specifically at the case of Mr. Jones, the hon. Lady's constituent, in view of her concerns about it. I understand that it is currently the subject of an appeal, and I believe that it will not be many days now before she receives the result of the appeal. I shall take a close interest in the facts of the case for her.
About 90 per cent. of outstanding appeals to the CSA are less than 13 weeks old. That is partly the result of the centralisation of appeals at the end of 1994, and it also demonstrates improved performance. The agency cleared twice as many appeals in the second half of 1995 as in the first.

Dr. Spink: Bearing in mind the fact that the average maintenance assessment under the CSA has increased from £23 a week to £40 a week, what would be the effect, especially on 16-year-olds who might have their child benefit removed by the Labour party, if the Government were to follow the possible policy of the Labour party and abolish the CSA?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to expose the wholly spurious figures on which the proposal by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was based—a proposal that would attack the very people whom the Labour party claimed that it was attempting to help. My hon. Friend is also right to emphasise that an increased amount of money is getting through to children as a result of the work of the Child Support Agency, but he will remember, with me, the reforms made by the House last year, which ensured that no one will be assessed to pay more than 30 per cent. of their net income. That delivers a fair level of maintenance, and I am grateful to him for his support for the agency's work.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Kashmir

Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister when he intends next to meet the Prime Minister of India to discuss Kashmir. [24659]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I have no plans at present to meet the Indian Prime Minister. I look forward to an early opportunity to do so following the Indian elections, which begin later this month.

Mr. Madden: Does the Prime Minister share the growing international view that the conflict over Kashmir

presents the gravest threat to international peace today, given that India and Pakistan have gone to war over Kashmir previously, and that both countries now have a nuclear capability? Against that background, will the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government do everything possible to persuade the next Government of India to enter into serious and urgent negotiations with the Government of Pakistan on the basis of UN resolutions, to find an acceptable settlement on the basis of the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their own future?

The Prime Minister: That is an important matter, as the hon. Gentleman says. We are in touch with our friends and colleagues in India and in Pakistan. We have said consistently to those friends and colleagues that we are prepared to help in the search for a solution, either at the UN or in any other forum, provided that the parties concerned wish us to do so. That remains our position, but there must be simultaneous progress on several fronts—first, self-evidently, bilateral dialogue; secondly, the development of a genuine political process in Kashmir, with an improvement in the human rights position there; and, thirdly, a clear cessation of external support for militants, which has poisoned the atmosphere in Kashmir for far too long.

Mr. Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent developments in Kashmir have caused many UK citizens of Kashmiri origin much anxiety? His statement that the British Government will continue to press for a stable democratic solution of the Kashmir problem will therefore be most welcome.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know from my experience that what he says about citizens here in the United Kingdom is true. Our policy is to advocate the development of a genuine political process in Kashmir.

Engagements

Ms Armstrong: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24660]

The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Ms Armstrong: As we once again see Tory Members of Parliament queuing up to express their differences—one with another—over European policy, is not the Government's real problem the widely held view of the Prime Minister, which was vocalised this morning by Sir James Goldsmith when he asked how people could be expected to follow a man who zig-zags so much?

The Prime Minister: I can think of some prominent politicians who, in the past two years, have made it their life's work to deny everything that they stood for previously. So far as I recall, those politicians enjoy the strong support of the hon. Lady.
As to Europe, the hon. Lady might care to look at the comments of some of her hon. Friends in response to recent statements that I have made about Europe which


expose clear differences on the Opposition Benches. She might also care to look at some of the pamphlets that have been produced, in which many tens of Labour Members demonstrate their sharp differences with the Labour Front-Bench policy. They are as split on Europe as they could be.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24661]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that British beef is best and that that remains the case despite the scaremongering by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) which has done so much damage? Will he tell our European colleagues that, until the ban is lifted, there will be no more co-operation from this country, nor any more British money?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that British beef is best. I am also happy to confirm to him and to others that it is entirely safe, and that has been verified by British scientists, by the World Health Organisation and by Commissioner Fischler. There is no justification whatever for the European ban, but I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made some progress this morning and I am delighted with that. We are seeking to get the ban lifted as soon as possible, and I hope and expect that that will happen.
As to withholding resources, I must tell my hon. Friend that that would be illegal under United Kingdom law, quite apart from European law. I am not sure that either the House or my hon. Friend would wish the Government to behave illegally.

Mr. Blair: I suspect that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) speaks for many tens on the Conservative side. Will the Prime Minister clarify whether it is the Government's policy to threaten retaliation against Europe over beef, so that the confusion and incompetence at the heart of Government policy may be removed once and for all?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman once threatened to leave Europe, as I recall—it was part of his election manifesto. As the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) might put it, he has clearly zig-zagged from that policy since then.
Our policy is as I described it a moment ago: to try to seek, by agreement, the lifting of the ban. I hope that the ban will be lifted but, if that is unreasonably withheld, our position is—as it has been—that we shall look at other options.

Mr. Blair: What does that mean? I suggest to the Prime Minister that a strategy based on the Grand Old Duke of York is not a very good one. The Foreign Secretary is hinting at retaliation, the Deputy Prime Minister contradicts him and he calls his European partners a bunch of something-or-others while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is negotiating with them.

Will the Prime Minister kindly take a grip on the situation? If he does not, he will find that his Government are taken seriously neither at home nor abroad.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends played a part in creating this problem. There is not a beef farmer in this country who does not know that the problem has been worsened by the way in which the Labour party has behaved. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has the gall to continue to behave in that way. I set the matter out perfectly clearly for the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago and I am sorry that he was unable to understand it. We are discussing the lifting of the ban, and we are making progress on that. That is the right way to proceed but, at the end of the discussions, if the lifting of the ban is unreasonably withheld, we shall consider other options for action. I hope that is clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman this time.

Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister is to threaten retaliation, he should be clear about what he is saying. At some point, the Prime Minister will have to admit the brutal truth to himself—that the business of his Government is less designed to run an Administration than to appease the factions in the Conservative party. Until that changes, he and his Government will be divided, weak and incompetent.

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on being clear, perhaps he will be clear about his tax plans. Perhaps he will be clear about why, if children stay on to do A-levels, their parents should lose £500 a year in benefit. Perhaps he will recognise that we operate in Europe in the national interest while he seeks party interest. It is in the national interest to seek, as we are doing, the lifting of the ban on beef, and it is equally in everyone's interest to remind the beef industry which party played a role in worsening the crisis.

Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24662]

The Prime Minister: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of young people staying on in full-time education since 1979? Does he agree that that considerable achievement, on which our future depends, is put at risk by the plans that we have heard from Opposition Front Benchers for chopping the funding for 16 to 18-year-olds?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Even among the children of unskilled parents, more than half now stay on in education beyond their 16th birthdays. The claim by the shadow Chancellor, who is probably absent because he is checking his figures, that only 20 per cent. of children stay on at school is years and years out of date. It is based on figures from between 1974 and 1978, under the Labour Government. The fact that the figures are so wrong shows the vast increase in educational opportunities since then. The reality for working-class and other parents is that, if their children


stay on at school beyond GCSE to A-level, the Labour party will charge them £500 for each child by taking away their child benefit—so much for Labour's concern for opportunities for the poor.

Mr. Ashdown: We can always tell when the Government are in a real mess—they start to blame everybody else. Given the urgent necessity to get the ban on British beef lifted, have not the past 24 hours been all too typical of the five weeks of fiasco over BSE? The Foreign Secretary launches gunboats over breakfast, Tarzan sounds the retreat over lunch and, by dinner, the poor old Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on his way to Brussels, is shot in the foot again. How on earth can we persuade Europe to believe the Government when the Government cannot even agree among themselves?

The Prime Minister: I suppose that, one day, it is just possible we might hear something from the right hon. Gentleman about what he would do in any given circumstances. We never hear that: we just get the usual carping criticism. The matter was carried forward in Moscow, when I met Heads of Government on Saturday; my right hon. and learned Friend took it further in the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday; and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is pursuing it today. Each and every day, there are further meetings and more progress is made towards getting the ban lifted. It would be helpful if, just once, the right hon. Gentleman were to think of the interests of the beef industry and of the country, rather than produce the carping criticism that we usually get from him.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24663]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Church-aided schools have a long and proud tradition of providing good quality education? Therefore, is he, like me, shocked to see the specific attacks on Church schools by the Liberal Democrats? Is that not another example of

the Liberal Democrats attacking parental choice and the right of parents to make their own choice? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that parents must take that into account when they vote at the next election?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of moral and spiritual education, and I share the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). What the Liberal spokesman said was a silly and ill-considered attack on religious education and I can assure my hon. Friend that it will never form part of our policy.

Mr. Donald Anderson: What further measures of appeasement do the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Conservative party have in mind to placate the patriot across the water, Sir James Goldsmith?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is quite clear—none.

Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24664]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will press ahead with the objective of achieving a 20 per cent. rate of basic income tax? Given the reports in the press at the weekend, is it not absolutely clear that, while the Government are rightly moving towards a 20p rate, the Labour party is moving towards a 30p rate?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, one quarter of taxpayers already pay tax at only 20 per cent. and I confirm that, as soon as it is affordable, we shall move further towards a 20 per cent. tax rate for everyone. There is no doubt that taxes go up under Labour Governments. The Labour party does not like to admit that. Today, the shadow Chancellor is trying to gag the City, but the fact is that, because Labour wishes to spend more, it will always tax more at national level, as it is doing today at local level.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (CHARGES)

That the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 582) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

That the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996, No. 583) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Question agreed to

European Communities (European Court)

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the European Communities Act 1972 so as to provide by Order in Council for the disapplication within the United Kingdom of judgments, rules and doctrines propounded by the European Court.
The Bill that I present today is a simple one. It would amend the European Communities Act 1972 and provide for a mechanism of an Order in Council which had been approved by the House to disapply specific judgments which this Parliament decided were not in the national interest.
I drafted the Act more than a month ago and, at the time that I raised it, we were on the receiving end of a bizarre European Court judgment on Spanish fishermen. But since then, we have seen the European Court throw out our painstakingly negotiated opt-out from the social chapter by imposing the 48-hour working week. I am sad to say that the terrible ban on British beef, which is tearing an excellent industry apart, will not be affected by the Act.
But European integration and the rulings of the European Court now have far-reaching implications, enabling British courts to overturn Acts of Parliament on which we in the House have no say. Yet despite all that, British citizens do not understand the driving ethos of the court. The European Court is a political court, and it sees its role as the architect of European integration. That fact has enabled our courts to throw out such legislation as that on part-time workers—which they did more than a year and a half ago.
In making its judgments, the European Court of Justice often divines the intentions of the Governments who signed it into being many years ago, which gives the court huge licence to make legislation that national Governments must obey. It so often does all of that by guessing at previous political intentions. In so doing, the court has changed general statements on such issues as sex equality or health and safety at work into powerful doctrines, and dramatically extended the power of Community institutions.
We are therefore witnessing a process of judge-made law that goes far beyond the traditional scope of the British national courts and cuts across the vital concept that law makers should be fully accountable to the electorate. Furthermore, once the court makes such a ruling, it has decreed that the relevant power is for ever lost to national Governments by the insidious doctrine of the occupied field.
The recent fishing decision is an excellent example of how this Act would operate. The European Court not only previously overturned a British Act of Parliament—the Merchant Shipping Act 1988—but went further. In the recent European case—Frankovitch—the court created yet a new doctrine: national Governments could be directly liable for damages caused by those who live and work in the Union.
The court applied that doctrine to the Spanish fishermen, yet the doctrine had not been agreed by Governments at an intergovernmental conference or written into the treaty. The court had simply decided that the doctrine was inherent in the treaty's scheme, and, as a result, the British Government may have to pay up to £30 million of taxpayers' money in compensation.
The doctrine adds to a common fisheries policy that now allows the Spanish to take a huge proportion of our fish quota, resulting in the demise of a once great British fishing industry. It is ironic that many of our European partners whose implementation of the judgments is much less thorough than ours have constitutional court mechanisms, yet we in Britain are without any such mechanism.
It is high time that this Parliament—which is to be and has always been the guardian of our constitution—was able to review those judgments, and, where necessary, seek to change them politically.
The Government have recently determined to get the fisheries decision changed at the IGC. Although I understand that we have not yet tabled any proposals, I expect—I am sure that we all do—that they will do so very soon. In the meantime, however, we cannot stop British courts ruling on the claims brought by Spanish fishermen. Thus, when the Government succeed—as succeed they must—in getting this judgment overturned, taxpayers' money will already have been spent unnecessarily, not to mention paying the costs of court time.
Parliament should act now to stop those cases going in front of the British courts. It should give itself the power to review not only the fishing judgment but other judgments as they arise, and to decide in each case the relevant course of action.
An Act such as this one would pass swiftly through the House, because hon. Members who oppose it would have to explain to the great British public why they prefer to have British taxpayers' money spent on ridiculous projects in which the British never acquiesced.
The constitutional court in Germany, for example, regularly reviews European Court judgments. It has even confirmed the German Bundestag's authority to decide whether it abolishes the deutschmark and enters a single currency at the turn of the century. That would, of course, breach European law, yet I do not remember anyone on the continent or over here murmuring defiance about the German constitutional court. The Germans had no opt-out in the treaty, but they gave themselves one.
The Germans are not alone. The French, under article 55, have the same power, as do other countries. Those constitutional courts have, in fact, gone even further, ruling in many cases that, when there is a dispute between European law and their own basic laws, their laws will prevail.
The British people have the right to ask why we should not at least be able to choose to exercise similar powers of revision.
Yet there is one thing that the Bill would do which seems to have caused even greater concern—the fact that I am proposing to amend the European Communities Act 1972. Although they will not do so publicly, some people—many of them judges—are saying quietly behind their hands that Parliament cannot amend that Act. They are even beginning to say that Parliament could not repeal the Act without first clearing it with our European partners. They argue that we sacrificed that power when we signed the 1972 Act.
I seem to recall, however, that, at the time of the referendum, the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath),

made it quite clear that there was no question of handing over those sovereign powers. I prefer, as I am sure the House does, to be guided by the Father of the House. At the heart of the matter lies a serious misunderstanding of the 1972 Act, because nothing in the treaty we signed then defines our relationship with European law to that extent. It is the European Court, through its various judgments, that has widened its scope through a set of doctrines.
One doctrine is that individuals may invoke Community directives before national courts. That was the judgment in the Van Duyn case.
Another is that national courts cannot question the validity of Community instruments such as directives. That doctrine was set out during the Fotofrost case.
It also said, in the Van Gend En Loos case, that Community law had direct effect in creating individual rights.
Most remarkably, it said in another judgment that the Commission, when creating a directive, must choose an article covered by qualified majority voting, because that now takes precedence over any other article.
Those doctrines are propounded by the court; they are not in the 1972 Act or the amendments to it. It is the court that has legislated. That is not the rule understood since the Restoration in the United Kingdom, where laws have been made and crafted by Parliament, scrutinised line by line, opposed by an official Opposition and then handed to the judiciary for application.
At stake is whether Parliament can make, break or amend its own Acts of Parliament, and whether, entrusted with British rights and freedoms, we are content to do that, or hand over those powers bit by bit to Brussels. We now have an opportunity to put a political court, and what has become political law, in context.
There is a growing realisation among our constituents that we have become supine and powerless because we have chosen to be so. We have before us a mechanism that perhaps enables us at last to question and challenge that. If we do not, how much respect should our constituents afford us? Why should they believe us when we shed crocodile tears for the detrimental effects on their livelihoods, but do nothing? I therefore urge all hon. Members to stay to vote for the Bill. There is no time to act but now—let us seize the moment and pass the Bill.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I oppose the Bill, and begin by referring to the position of the Executive. I see that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is representing our interests—God help us—at the intergovernmental conference, is here, which I welcome.
The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) failed to deal with the Government's rather sensible proposals in respect of the European Court of Justice and what line the Government will pursue in the context of the intergovernmental conference discussions in the coming months. In this instance, I support the position of the Government and the Minister, not that of the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, the Government themselves will want to oppose the Bill, as it goes so clearly and categorically against their own position as outlined in the White Paper that we debated only a few weeks ago.
The hon. Gentleman made a characteristically cogent and fair-minded case. None the less, there is a sense in which the Conservatives are bad losers, and we are seeing that in the Conservative party's domestic track record as much as in its European track record. These days, there is a more widespread attack on the judiciary generally. The Government have only themselves to blame, because, since 1979, legislation has repeatedly given more power to Ministers, and that power has been subject to judicial review. The result of that judicial review has often gone against the decisions of the Ministers in question.
The Conservatives are nothing if not consistent. They are showing dismay not only because they are being caught out by the courts in this country but because, increasingly, they are also being caught out by the courts at European level. That is what this attack is all about, and that is why the House should reject it.
First, what about the position of the companies that would be victims of protectionist legislation from the rest of Europe if we passed the Bill, and if we enjoyed no right—no guaranteed say—in the influencing of European law? Two companies, Ladbroke and British Petroleum, currently have important cases before the European Court. They have taken up those cases on the basis of competition policy. If they win—I hope they will—they will expect the rules to stick, but the rules would not even have a chance of being implemented in our favour or interpreted legally if the Bill were passed. Where British interests and British companies are concerned, the legal framework of the European Union is a strength rather than a weakness.
Then there is the charge of hypocrisy. I might not level that charge at the hon. Gentleman, but it can certainly be attached to the Government. The Government are rightly making the case against the European Union ban on British beef—we heard about that again from the Prime Minister this afternoon—but how are they pursuing that case? Via the European Court of Justice. That is a classic example of wanting to have your cake, or your beef in this instance, and eat it. When it suits them, the Government are willing to use the facilities available to them from the European Court; when it does not suit them, they are willing to tear up the entire basis of it, as the hon. Gentleman wants to.
Both in his speech and in a newspaper article published today, the hon. Gentleman has argued that the rulings and legal interpretations of the European Court are somehow at fundamental variance with the British approach. I think that he is wrong, and that his interpretation is misguided. In fact, the European Court's rulings conform to exactly the same pattern as those of the British courts. For example, British courts' rulings can be retrospective if the courts so wish. Moreover, the European Court has shown sensitivity in stating that in, for example, the Barber case involving pensions, the ruling should be prospective.
Attacks such as this suggest that the European Court has nothing to do with us—that it is composed of a bunch of people over there that does not include us. Here is the curriculum vitae of Francis Geoffrey Jacobs, appointed by the British Government to the European Court of Justice.
He was a lecturer in jurisprudence at Glasgow university between 1963 and 1965, a lecturer in law at the London school of economics between 1965 and 1969, a member of the secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights and the legal directorate of the Council of

Europe between 1969 and 1972—[Interruption.] I do not know why Conservative Members are heckling. Their Government made the appointment; it was nothing to do with the rest of us.
Mr. Jacobs was Legal Secretary at the European Court of Justice between 1972 and 1974, professor of European law at London university between 1974 and 1988, and Advocate-General at the European Court of Justice between 1988 and 1995, and has been First Advocate-General since 1995. Clearly, he is someone who just does not know what he is talking about in regard to the rule of law.
So many of the decisions that are not to the liking of the present Administration are unanimous, and have the endorsement of both the learned gentleman to whom I have referred and his predecessor, Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, who served as President of the European Court. That in itself should prompt us to ask why, if we do not take it seriously—as the hon. Gentleman does not want us to do—we are appointing someone of such legal distinction to the office in the first place.
The Conservatives should come clean. If they want us out of Europe, to which the passing of the Bill would be tantamount, they should say so. They do not have the guts to say that, and if they are not prepared to come clean with the House, the House should not be prepared to give this nonsensical Bill a Second Reading.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 83.

Division No. 103]
[15.49 pm


AYES


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beggs, Roy
Lord, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Marland, Paul


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Marlow, Tony


Booth, Hartley
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Brazier, Julian
Mills, Iain


Budgen, Nicholas
Moate, Sir Roger


Butcher, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Carrington, Matthew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Cash, William
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Pawsey, James


Dover, Den
Porter, David (Waveney)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dunn, Bob
Riddick, Graham


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Gale, Roger
Rowlands, Ted


Gardiner, Sir George
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Gill, Christopher
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Skinner, Dennis


Harvey, Nick
Spearing, Nigel


Hawksley, Warren
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Hunter, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Jessel, Toby
Sweeney, Walter


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Legg, Barry
Tracey, Richard






Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trimble, David
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Mr. Nicholas Winterton and


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Michael Brown.




NOES


Allen, Graham
Jamieson, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Ashby, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Barnes, Harry
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Barron, Kevin
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Khabra, Piara S


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Knox, Sir David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Burden, Richard
McCartney, Ian


Chidgey, David
McGrady, Eddie


Chisholm, Malcolm
Mackinlay, Andrew


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
McLeish, Henry


Corston, Jean
McNamara, Kevin


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
MacShane, Denis


Dafis, Cynog
Maddock, Diana


Darling, Alistair
Mahon, Alice


Davidson, Ian
Maxton, John


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Meale, Alan


Donohoe, Brian H
Michael, Alun


Dowd, Jim
Miller, Andrew


Dykes, Hugh
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Etherington, Bill
Morley, Elliot


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
 Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Faulds, Andrew
Pickthall, Colin


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pope, Greg


Foulkes, George
Prentice Bridget (Lewisham East)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Radice, Giles


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rendel, David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Henderson, Doug
Rooney, Terry


Hendron, Dr Joe
Sedgemore, Brian


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hodge, Margaret
Tipping, Paddy



Wareing, Robert N


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Wicks, Malcolm


Hoon, Geoffrey
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Worthington, Tony


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hutton, John
Mr. James Wallace and


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Mr. Nigel Jones.

Question accordingly negatived

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order to point out that the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Scotland sat through the entire speech of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), obviously wishing desperately that they could join him in the Lobby?

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation)

DANGEROUS DRUGS

That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.

COMMISSIONER FOR COMPLAINTS (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.

OMBUDSMAN (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.

FARM WASTE

That the Farm Waste Grant (Nitrate Vulnerable Zones) (England and Wales) Scheme 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 908), a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Question agreed to.

DEREGULATION (LONG PULL)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
That the draft Deregulation (Long Pull) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Question agreed to

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress 22 April].

[SIR GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair]

Schedule 1

THE ELECTIONS

4 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move amendment No. 176, in page 4, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (3)
This is a technical amendment, which removes a part of the order-making power, which, as it transpires from the drafting of the election order, is no longer necessary. It had been thought that the power to make rules of court in respect of electoral petitions would be transferred from the authority having power to make such rules to the Secretary of State. The power is unnecessary, because the elections order will apply the parliamentary election petition rules with modifications.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 20, leave out
'and twenty for Northern Ireland as a whole'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 17, in page 5, leave out lines 1 and 2.
No. 47, in page 5, line 1, leave out 'one constituency list' and insert 'three constituency lists.'.
No. 18, in page 5, leave out lines 5 and 6.
No. 157, in page 5, line 5, leave out from 'must' to end of line 6 and insert 'not exceed eighteen'.
No. 19, in page 5, leave out lines 9 and 10.
No. 20, in page 6, leave out lines 3 to 12.
No. 12, in page 6, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
(2) Three candidates from the regional list of each of the three parties with the largest aggregates shall be returned as delegates along with two candidates from the regional list of each of the next four parties with the largest aggregates and one candidate from the regional list of each of the next three parties with the largest aggregates.'.
No. 21, in page 6, line 14, leave out the words 'or regional'.
No. 22, in page 6, line 22, leave out the words 'or regional'.
No. 23, in page 6, line 32, leave out from 'delegate' to end of line 34.
No. 24, in page 6, leave out lines 35 and 36.

Mr. Robinson: There are a number of amendments in this group, and several of them are consequential.
There are two principal amendments in the group, and I freely admit that this is very much a belt and braces operation. I am sure that the Government recognise that the thrust of the amendments is an attempt to democratise the electoral process that they have attempted to rig.
The two principal amendments are Nos. 15 and 12. Amendment No. 15 seeks to leave out the words
and twenty for Northern Ireland as a whole",
which is a reference to the regional list that the Secretary of State has attached to the 18 constituency lists where elections would be held.
If, in the view of the Committee, it is not considered appropriate to remove the regional list in its entirety, there is clearly an argument for some scaling within that list. Amendment No. 12 allows some democracy to enter the system. It is not as democratic as some of the other amendments, but given that the purpose of the regional list in the Government's view was to give some weighting to the votes of very small parties, the amendment at least makes a gesture towards the Government's purpose, while at the same time acknowledging the strength of political parties' support in the electorate as a whole.
The process that gave rise to the Government putting forward a regional list commenced when the Prime Minister said on 28 February:
The issues still to be settled include, first, the nature of the electoral system to be used in the elective process. There are strong views for and against different systems. Although the decision is for us, the British Government, we first intend to explore and test all the options in discussions with the parties before coming to our decision on what seems most broadly acceptable."—[Official Report, 28 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 900-1.]
I emphasise those words, because the Prime Minister set Northern Ireland parties a test to establish the most broadly acceptable process.
After a period of consultation, for which the Government called, parties emerged with two principal available options. The political parties did not express the view that there were only two options—that was the Government's view. They issued a discussion paper on 8 March, in which they said:
The two main realistic options appear to be:
(a) STV 18 x 5 Member Constituencies
(b) Party List, Northern Ireland single constituency".
The Government recognised on the foot of consultations arising out of the process they had set up that two main options were open, and only two.
The Ulster Democratic Unionist party, the SDLP and all the small parties, with the exception of the Alliance party, agreed that the party list system was the best way forward. The Ulster Unionist party and the Alliance party favoured the single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency. It was clear from the criteria set down by the Prime Minister that the list system, under which the whole of Northern Ireland would be a single constituency, was the most broadly acceptable, yet the Government were not prepared to accept it.
On 21 March, the Prime Minister said that three different electoral systems had been put forward during the consultation process. That was after his own Government representatives in Northern Ireland had already provided a document that said there were only two. To provide an excuse and a cover so that the Government could change their criteria, they decided that there were three systems.
The Government attempted to magnify the minutiae of the difference between the SDLP version of a list system and my party's version in order to divide and conquer. The Government could quite easily have said that the list system was favoured and was the most broadly acceptable, and that some minor areas needed to be clarified, but they decided not to do so, and instead went for a hybrid system.
The reason why the Government decided on a hybrid system was that, in the background, on 15 March, they had produced another document, which was again to inform and assist parties on the ground rules for substantive all-party negotiations. Paragraph 8 of that document said:
The two Governments may agree, following consultations with the political parties who have obtained representation at the negotiations, that a political party which has failed to obtain a mandate in the elective process may be offered observer status at the negotiations. Such observer status would involve participation in negotiations subject to the same conditions applying to other political parties".
That proposition was manifestly absurd; those who had lost the election and been rejected by the electorate would be able to present themselves in the negotiating process on exactly the same terms as those who had been successful in the elective process. I am not sure what the other political parties' reaction to the Minister of State was, but I know what ours was—that the paragraph was clearly unacceptable.
So a hybrid system was born, with a regional list intended to give an entrée to the talks process to those who would have been rejected under any other electoral system. The only way in which the Government could get the unacceptable face of the Unionist community through the door was to provide those people with a free ticket, by allowing the top 10 parties into the talks process with two representatives each from the list.
Of course, the Government had done their calculations beforehand, and determined that the two loyalist parties from the paramilitary fringes would be able to scrape themselves up sufficient votes across the country to qualify as one of the top 10 parties. That was the means by which the Government sought to secure representation at the table for those loyalist paramilitary parties. There was no reason for the regional list other than to provide a ticket for them.
I do not doubt that some in the House will say that it is a good thing that those people should be there. Many of us, even those who do not like the elective system, would say that, if people can obtain a mandate, it is a good thing that they should be there; but if they cannot secure a mandate, they should not be there. It would be rather demeaning for those representatives, or for those of any other political party, to find themselves in the negotiating process having come through as second-class politicians tinder the proposed system. It would not give them the same credibility as those who can secure a proper mandate.
The effect of the schedule, and thus of the regional list that it says is necessary for Northern Ireland, can be explained as follows. If we transferred the votes cast at the most recent election held in Northern Ireland, the European election, into the proposed new system, the top three parties would have secured 81.6 per cent. of the vote, for which they would get 30 per cent. of the places, while the bottom three parties in the list of 10 suggested by the Secretary of State would have secured 1.3 per cent. of the vote—yet for that they too would receive 30 per cent. of the places.
To put that another way, the top three parties would have to secure 76,450 votes for one place, whereas the bottom three would require only 1,213 votes for one place. No one can suggest that there is the least degree of democracy in such a system. If the Secretary of State is not prepared to wipe the regional list out entirely and rely on the list system within the constituencies, he could at least attempt to introduce some scaling within the system.

Mr. David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful and compelling case against the unjust arrangements before the Committee, and I agree with him. Does he agree that an even more significant point about the rag, tag and bobtail of thugs whom the mechanism will let in, is the fact that, because the system requires agreement by consent of everybody, the minority of terrorist apologists will have a veto over the 80 to 90 per cent. of properly democratically elected people?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman's point is sound. Further, having jumped through all those hoops for the sake of these groups, it could well be that they would not be entitled to be part of the negotiating process under the rules that the Secretary of State has outlined. We would have distorted the democratic process to try to get a result that cannot be produced.

Dr. Joe Hendron: I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and agree that there was broad support for the top three parties at the European election. The votes cast in that election for his party and for my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) make a high percentage, but the Government ignored that.
We must consider the present situation and what can be done. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the regional list. It sounds like a farce, but it is important that the representatives of the paramilitaries should be there. It would be unrealistic if, on 10 June, no representatives of the loyalist paramilitaries and, through Sinn Fein, the Provisional IRA, were there. I believe that they should be there, but I take his point.

Mr. Robinson: Of course, if the electorate were to support them, those groups would be there. If the hon. Gentleman feels that it is important that they should be there, he can go out and canvass for them. He can go up and down the Falls road and Andersonstown saying, "Vote Progressive Unionist party or Ulster Democratic party." In a democratic society, that option is open to anyone who believes that those are the parties that should be in the talks process. Everyone has the option of supporting them.
At the end of any argument, a vote is taken by the people. The ballot box verdict must be the final judgment. If people cannot secure sufficient votes to get through the gateway into the process, they do not deserve to be there. They certainly do not deserve to be there on the argument that I think is at the back of the hon. Gentleman's mind—that they can cause destruction. As soon as one accepts that argument, one says that it is important to ensure that those who are prepared to kill have a place at the negotiating table. That only encourages more people to take up the gun and to place the bomb.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I, as the leader of a minority party, endorse his sentiments about the undemocratic nature of the elections, and agree that there can be no basis for these strange electoral arrangements, other than the inclusion of parties that would otherwise be incapable of obtaining a mandate from any representative section of the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member. It says much for him that he is prepared to put the interests of democracy above his self-interest and that of people around him.
It cannot be argued that those who receive 81.6 per cent. of the vote should get the same number of representatives at the end of the process as those who receive 1.3 per cent. That does not stand up to argument. The party that topped the poll, with almost 30 per cent. of vote, is to get the same number of representatives as a party that got 0.33 per cent. of the vote. The Secretary of State cannot justify such an outcome. If that is to be the case, I hope that at the very least he will accept a clause that will allow some scaling in the system.
If that is the unfairness of the system, what will be its outcome? Again using the results of the European election, let us see who will be coming through the door to meet the Secretary of State in the talks. At No. 10, he will have the Natural Law party. This is a serious matter. He has provided the system. He wants to ensure that the top 10 parties in Northern Ireland will be at the negotiating table to decide the future of Northern Ireland, its relationship with the Irish Republic and all the issue that he believes are important.
The Secretary of State is providing a system which, on the last election results, would bring through the door the Natural Law party. It is important that we look at something of the parties that will be there. The Natural Law party believes in yogic flying. It believes that yogic flying produces bubbling bliss for the individual, creates maximum coherence in brain function—that might be useful around this place—and increases harmony and positivity in society, leading to reductions in crime and other negative trends. It is a phenomenon known as the Maharishi effect.
We as representatives of Northern Ireland will be spending 12 or perhaps 24 months with such people. If they are given the same amount of time as the rest of us, for at least one or two months we shall have to witness the Natural Law party yogic flying around the conference room, giving us the benefits of its proposals for the future of Northern Ireland. What will that do for the standing of the process with the delegates and the electorate? It will make the whole process a laughing stock.
The Secretary of State has not fully thought out the consequences of the proposal that he has placed before the Committee. It is undemocratic and fatally flawed. Its purpose was to bring in paramilitaries who could not get elected under any other process. It gives rise not only to such vexatious parties as the Natural Law party coming through the door but to an unwieldy conference table.
The proposal ensures that there will be 10 parties from Northern Ireland at the negotiating table. Those parties will be joined not only by Her Majesty's Government in strand 1 but by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic in strand 2. So there will be 12 parties, each of which will have three representatives as negotiators, and we shall have 36 negotiators. Each of the negotiators for the political parties of Northern Ireland will have the support of three people, and the two Governments will have the support of five. So there will be 76 people around the negotiating table.
What sort of negotiations will take place in the United Nations atmosphere that the Secretary of State is creating? It just is not reasonable. It just would not work. It is clear that, before too long, the Secretary of State—or perhaps the Minister of State, who might understand it better because he has responsibility for sport—will have to set up a premier league. He will have to decide that the yogic fliers can fly elsewhere, and the serious politicians should be in a room to themselves.
The Secretary of State is creating further problems down the line for himself simply through the process in which he has indulged in this schedule. I ask him to consider the system more fully than he has, and either take out the regional list system in its entirety or do some serious scaling down to ensure that democracy is inserted into the process.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): We have listened to a robust and fluent speech from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who denounced the proposals for a top-up system as creating a fundamentally unfair system. Of course it is possible on a formalistic view of a democratic system to mount a case in support of that. It is equally possible to mount a similarly argued case when, in reflection of particular political, social or historical circumstances, it is considered appropriate to have a system of a weighted majority.
During the discussions that took place over six months in 1992, we found that there was general consent that there should be a system of a weighted majority in any assembly that may come to be devolved as a consequence of an overall settlement. Therefore, while I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Belfast, East is entitled to make, in formal terms, the complaint that he has made, I meet it by saying that similar complaints could be made about any system of a weighted majority; yet all parties, his own included, acknowledged in 1992 that there was a place in Northern Ireland for a weighted majority.
The hon. Gentleman also said that representatives of parties close to paramilitary organisations ought not to be the subject of this special consideration. Against that, I ask him to consider the reasonably widely expressed view that those who represent those parties—it is acknowledged that they are unlikely to secure a numerous vote of preferences—should be present at and take part in the discussions.
At one stage—the hon. Gentleman mentioned this—the Government believed that there might be quite a bit to be said for having them present on an observer basis. That suggestion was canvassed, but it met with scant support. In fact, it was denounced by the hon. Gentleman, and by his leader, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), among others. The Government came to the conclusion that those protests were well founded, and that we ought to look for some other way to achieve this representation within an electoral system.

Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State is in the process of confessing that the only reason why we have this regional list system is to give certain paramilitary parties representation. When he devised the system—which provided representation for the top 10 parties—there were only a dozen or so parties on his list. However, his list has now been expanded to 33—soon to be 34. Is he equally confident that the paramilitary parties, which are the sole object of his attention, will succeed in getting into the top 10? Does he feel it necessary to extend the list of the number of parties who will get guaranteed seats to bring in the parties that he is favouring?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is a fair point. There are now more small parties than was the case when the Government published the first list. So be it; let us see what happens. The purpose is to secure that those who will not get a large vote, by reason of small but significant support, will not be excluded from participation in the all-party negotiations.
It would have been possible to legislate in a way that focused this provision only on small parties, but it seemed appropriate and less likely to attract criticisms of unfairness, to allow the representation on a Northern Ireland-wide basis to extend to those who came within the top 10 of the aggregated votes.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Prime Minister's observations. However, I think that he unwittingly gave a misleading account of the Government's original document, which preceded the Prime Minister's statement of 21 March. He said that that document—the consultation document of 8 March—stated that only two systems of election had attracted support, but if he finds the appropriate place he will confirm that that document said that two main systems had attracted support. It was not accurate to say that that those were the only two systems that had attracted support. The two main realistic options appeared to be single transferable vote and the party list.
4.30 pm
On 21 March 1996, the Prime Minister told the House:
Whatever the merits of each of the three main systems, it is clear that none, on its own, meets that criterion of broad acceptability.
We have therefore considered how to proceed. We have decided to propose a new system
He described it. He said in the following paragraph:
I believe that this is a fair and valid system that will produce a representative outcome. The Province-wide element should help to achieve the widely shared objective of making the negotiating process as inclusive as possible through representation of the smaller parties."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 497-8.]
Paragraph 8 of the written statement, the paper that was published the same day, contains the following statement of the five factors that the Government have taken into account, in the absence of widespread agreement:
"its overriding obligation is to ensure the start of all-party negotiations on 10 June;
the negotiations should be conducted on as inclusive a basis as is compatible with democratic principles;
it would be wrong to conduct the election, intended to bring all parties together in negotiations, on the basis of any system that was in flat contradiction to the expressed views of one or other of the main communities;
none of the systems identified by the parties meets this test and accordingly none is acceptable;
a fair and balanced system must therefore be identified which should secure broad acceptance across the community."

Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the Secretary of State appreciates that the basic principle of democracy is that people or representatives should be elected on the mandate of the people. Is he aware that some of the representatives of the parties he hopes to include by means of this electoral Caliban, have said that their mandate is the silence of their guns?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am not aware of the particular quotation that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, but if that has been said by someone who may benefit from the process, who is standing, if the hon. and learned Gentleman makes that known, no doubt the electorate will take that into consideration in weighing their claims. One must accept that a great many things have been said in the past by a great many people which are regrettable but which should not necessarily exclude them from all further participation in any democratic process.
I acknowledge that this is not a system of which everyone would say, "This is perfection, " but I claim that, by reference to the criteria I mentioned, which the Government have espoused, and by reference to what the Prime Minister has said motivates the Government, the system merits very serious consideration and, in the Government's view, support. I hope that the Committee will take that view if the hon. Member for Belfast, East is not disposed to withdraw the amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course, in a second.
I wonder, Mr. Morris, whether I might have your guidance as to whether I should conveniently proceed with some observations on the remaining matters that are covered by grouped amendments, as we are allowed one speech only.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): The answer is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should continue.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I refer the Secretary of State to the amendment that gives at least a little democracy to the regional list. Those parties that obtain a large proportion of the vote should have more candidates on the regional list than those that obtain only a tiny percentage. The Secretary of State should inject some democracy into the process.
I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) needs to go into the constituencies to tell people about the comments of certain men. The loyalist districts—which I represent in another place also—are absolutely disgusted when such men come forward and say, "Our mandate is the silence of our guns." I am reminded of the remarks of the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who is in the Chamber. He said that guns should not be on the negotiating table or outside the door: we should get to that table only by the votes of the community.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall come to that point. However, I shall address initially the purpose of amendment No. 47, which is in this grouping.
The amendment would deny parties the ability to submit a regional list unless they have submitted at least three constituency lists. At present, the Bill allows the submission of only one list before a regional list can be handed in.
I can deal with the issue quite quickly, as the Government have considerable sympathy with the amendment. It does not seem unreasonable that those who wish to try to secure delegates via the regional list system should be asked to demonstrate their appeal beyond their traditional areas of strength. I think that it is important that those who seek to secure representatives in that way should be asked to put their case to a wider electorate. Accordingly, the Government are prepared to accept amendment No. 47.
I turn now to the tapering amendment No. 12, which the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned. The amendment attempts to skew the forum in favour of those parties that have already received a substantial vote—and, in all likelihood, a large number of seats. The purpose of providing for regional delegates is to seek to reward those parties that have obtained a reasonable share of the vote either across a small number of constituencies or across Northern Ireland as a whole, but which have secured either minimal representation or no representation at all at constituency level.
We feel strongly that the voices of those who have supported such parties should be rewarded also. Those parties that secure a large vote in the constituencies will be rewarded in the constituencies, and will receive regional delegates as well. We believe that that is fair. Therefore, I cannot recommend that the Committee accepts amendment No. 12.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I shall present the Opposition's view on the amendments. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) is correct: there is a lack of logic and, if one wanted to be purist, one could pursue the same route as the hon. Gentleman. He described the electoral system for Northern Ireland as the most absurd democracy in the world—I can only reply that he has not travelled very far. A short stroll down the corridor might reveal a slight democratic flaw in the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Ancram: Shame.

Mr. Worthington: I shall listen with interest to the future comments of the right hon. Gentleman—who, of

course, has a vested interest in describing it as a democracy. We support the Government in their assertion that there are small, influential parties that have been immensely important in the past 25 years in bringing about and sustaining a ceasefire.

Mr. Barry Porter: The difference between the other place and the forum is that the House of Lords, by and large, works. It is difficult to see how a body of 76 people, with disparate and apparently irreconcilable views, can work.

Mr. Worthington: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but I would point out that, in this context, the PUP and the UDP, which have been rightly mentioned, are seen as significant in having brought about a Protestant ceasefire and, perhaps much more significantly, they have used their influence after the breakdown of the ceasefire on the IRA's part to maintain the ceasefire by the loyalist community. That is very significant.
The party that might, with justice, complain about giving the PUP and the UDP the opportunity—not a guaranteed place, but an opportunity—to be in the top 10 parties might be the SDLP. In context, the regional list will mean the addition of extra Protestant Unionist parties to the list.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: The debate about the regional list system seems to have lost the focus on the purpose of the legislation. Does my hon. Friend accept that the purpose of the exercise is to create a negotiating table that will have the best opportunity of succeeding? In the SDLP, we are prepared to accept that mathematics will not provide what is necessary on the basis of democracy, but it is important that those who have an important contribution to make are at the table, be they supporters of the SDLP, nationalists, Unionists, extreme loyalists or whoever.

Mr. Worthington: That is exactly the point that I was making. If one pursued the issue mathematically rather than by seeking to provide the right opportunity for peace, one would set back the chances of a peaceful settlement. I am grateful to the hon. Member for clearing up that matter.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Member really saying, in terms, that people should be at the negotiating table because they have the guns, Semtex and bombs to make a settlement unworkable otherwise? Is that democracy at work in the mother of Parliaments?

Mr. Worthington: No. I am saying that it is important to recognise the contribution that has been made by those small parties and to ensure that the contribution that they have made so far can be continued, if they receive sufficient support to be in the top 10 parties, and only in those circumstances.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those parties are linked to organisations that are carrying out beatings? The beatings are not all on the part of the IRA. The most atrocious beating and maiming of people continues, and the hon. Gentleman stands at the Dispatch Box and tells us that those parties are making an


interesting contribution. They are. One of their leaders broke the head of a Roman Catholic and killed him with a concrete brick. Should such a person be given the right to sit at the negotiating table?

Mr. Worthington: As the hon. Member knows, all parties to the negotiations will have to face and can be challenged on the Mitchell principles, including the sixth principle. I am sure that the hon. Member will, in his formidable way, put that challenge. It is right that that should be so, but a judgment has been made by the Government, which we support, that we should try to make the talks as inclusive as possible, to ensure that all significant players are there. But the PUP and the UDP will not have a guaranteed place, because only the top 10 most popular parties can be represented at the talks.
The choice of number has been made—it has to be arbitrary—and 10 parties will be there. The hon. Member for Belfast, East is fond, rightly, of quoting the South African experience, which was also an inclusive arrangement. People were invited not simply from the major parties, the big boys of the African National Congress and the National parties, but as outsiders to leaven the mix. Those people may have not have had a huge mandate, but they had to be included if there was to be a successful settlement. That is the point behind the regional list. It is to ensure that those who have met constantly for 25 years—the large parties—will be leavened by others. We support the regional list and are pleased that the Government have resisted the amendments.

Mr. Trimble: The Downing street declaration set out—importantly, in the context of what we are debating now, and it has been repeated in other documents, including the ground rules—as one of the qualifications for inclusion in the process, the need to obtain a democratic mandate. It referred to democratically mandated parties and set out various conditions for moving into a dialogue with other parties.
The phrase "democratically mandated parties" has some meaning. On no reasonable meaning of the phrase could one regard parties that got only a small percentage of the vote—1 or 2 per cent. at most, and perhaps even less than 1 per cent.—and that could not, under any normal electoral system, obtain a seat, as democratically mandated. As a consequence, we have the elaborate concept of a regional list, which the Secretary of State was unable to defend. He frankly conceded that it is solely to enable paramilitary groups, which could not get elected under a normal system, to be brought in. That in itself is sufficient to condemn the concept of a regional list. Consequently, we would have no hesitation in supporting the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), were he to press the amendment to a Division.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: At what level would the hon. Gentleman set the threshold? Would he set it at 5 per cent.?

Mr. Trimble: The way to set the threshold is to have a normal electoral system, to discover the parties that can

obtain seats under that system. The reference to thresholds and percentages obviously relates to the system that operates in west Germany and that the hon. Gentleman proposes to adapt for a future Scottish Assembly. There is some merit in that sort of provision, but if there was a threshold, not all the parties that have been mentioned would be at the table. However, that is not the significant factor, because we have had an admission by the Secretary of State that the regional list is proposed simply in order to bring in paramilitary parties that could not get elected under any reasonable system. That is sufficient to condemn the notion and nothing further needs to be said.
I must, however, record my surprise and pleasure at the acceptance by the Secretary of State of amendment No. 47. I trust that that acceptance signals the beginning of a more sensible approach by the Secretary of State, and we look forward to his reaction to other amendments, especially amendments Nos. 44 and 46, which are linked with amendment No. 47 and which the Secretary of State knows we regard as a group.

Mr. McGrady: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) gave a clear and mathematical analysis of the situation and the likely consequences of the election based on the most recent European election held in Northern Ireland. I can confirm that we have spent many hours in negotiation with the Democratic Unionist party, the UDP and several other parties to try to obtain a consensus about the approach to the elections, which the Government so ardently urged us to do. I must inform the House that seven of the nine parties involved were able to achieve a fairly broad consensus on how to approach the list system and how the results would be apportioned. We thought that that was a fairly good achievement against the backcloth of the disharmony and distrust in Northern Ireland. Yet the Government completely rejected that consensus approach.
I want to explain the position of the SDLP regarding the amendments. I re-emphasise that the purpose of the elections is to enter negotiations in order to find a resolution to our problem. Therefore, we approach the matter from the point of view that the people who have contributed to the problem—that includes all of us—must be at the table in some shape or another.
We have always argued against having any election; against having any forum. We believed, and we still believe, that that was simply a delaying tactic to avoid the negotiating table. That was the precondition of the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party for negotiations.
The legislation is about negotiations; it is not about elections. It would be reasonable for the House to adopt the attitude that the normal requirements of the implementation of the democratic consequences of an election are not germane to this debate.
At the end of the day we are trying to hold a general election, not to elect a representative Parliament but to bring people to a negotiating table. That table must be as all-encompassing as we, with human ingenuity, and even perhaps with some stupidity, can achieve. But at least let us get those people to that table, to give the community that we represent the opportunity of all-inclusive, all-involving dialogue.
That is what the legislation is about. It is nothing more and nothing less than a means of providing a negotiating table to which as many as possible can be brought,


particularly those who have been engaged in violence, having, as a precondition, agreed no longer to support, use or countenance violence for the purpose of achieving political objectives.
These will be new people when they get to the negotiating table. They will be born-again democrats when they get to the negotiating table, because they will not be admitted unless they have eschewed their previous support of violence. That is what we are about today.
That is why my hon. Friends and I are not particularly concerned about the numbers game. Numbers will not be able to impose a solution. The solution will be achieved only by the consensus of those who are there; the consensus within the majority of the individual community representations. That is the only way in which we shall go forward.
No imposition, by way of number or anything else, will resolve our problem. That is why we are not particularly excited about the amendments. We want three or four people around the table from those who are making a contribution to the all-important and final resolution of our problems in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Wilshire: I am attracted to the amendments because, in my naive way, I had assumed at the outset of the process that the parties in Northern Ireland would get together and agree on the system that they wanted, leaving the Government simply having to accept the decision of the parties in Northern Ireland. I now see that that was too much to hope for.
If that is the case, the Government of the day are left with no alternative but to take some sort of a decision. However, I am not over-enthusiastic about the decision that has been taken. If it had been left to me, I would have pursued the ideas of the DUP and the SDLP, and tried to progress those. Nevertheless, the Government have taken decisions.
Therefore, what I need to say this afternoon is that I am deeply suspicious, as I believe are many others, of any electoral system that gives seats to losers and the unelectable, as this system surely does. I am even more suspicious when I hear people, such as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), explain to us that 80 per cent. of the electorate are likely to have something like 30 per cent. of the say, or whatever were the hon. Gentleman's figures. That is a total negation of what I understand as democracy. I am downright hostile to a system that requires unanimity from all the parties, when some of those parties will speak for less than 1 per cent. of the electorate. That cannot be democratic.
Despite those worries, I tried hard to find something positive in the Government's decision. If we keep rubbing away at the margins of who can be on the body, with a bit of luck and a following wind, and provided that Conservative central office behaves democratically when it finally gets to grips with the question whether Conservatives can stand, it may just be that the one positive feature of the system that we are being asked to approve is that there will be Conservative representatives on the negotiating body.
Unfortunately, I cannot say to the hon. Member for Belfast, East that Conservative representatives are any good at yogic flying—I am sure that that will be a disappointment—but I can tell him that Conservative representatives, if they were included, would be good at

running the country—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should allow me to keep my spirits up on occasions such as this. There is something positive in this. It is an opportunity for us to do in Northern Ireland what we are so good at on the mainland.
But as I said at the outset, whatever the difficulties, whatever the points of view, somebody had to decide. It is crystal clear that the popularity of the decision will be no test of its good sense. Therefore, when we consider the amendments, we must ask ourselves what test we can use for the quality of the Government's decision.
The only test that I can suggest is that the Government will have got it right if they are equally unpopular with all the parties in Northern Ireland. I accept that trying to be even-handed in the offence caused is a novel test, but if one listens carefully to what the parties in Northern Ireland are saying, I suspect that the Government pass that test. It is on that basis that I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and to vote for them.

Mr. Clive Soley: I had not intended to intervene, but as much of amendment No. 15 and the list relate to the argument about democracy, it is important to make the point that if I and others like me thought that all we had to do was to give the democratic system as we know it here back to Northern Ireland, and violence would never return, I would do it tomorrow morning and we could all go home.
We are here—it is vital to remember this—because the political system in Northern Ireland broke down. It would be entirely out of order of me on this amendment to say why I think it broke down, but in those circumstances the argument is not about simple democracy. One must consider things such as list systems.
I would rather not be in that position. I would rather have handled the situation differently at an earlier stage. But the reality is that we are all here today because the political system in Northern Ireland broke down and successive Labour and Tory Governments decided to impose direct rule. We still have direct rule in Northern Ireland. The system broke down, and we must get it working again. That is difficult.
It is important that, however unpopular politicians may be from time to time—we know that the Government are particularly unpopular at the moment—when all the political veneer is stripped away, the reality is that politics is the alternative to violence. There is violence when political systems break down, and that is what is happening in Northern Ireland. If we want to go back to that violence, we can pretend that this is a simple matter and merely say that whoever receives the most votes can run the show. Political systems do not work like that, however, and such an answer would be a recipe for continuing violence.
There is so much agreement between the Labour party and the Tory party on this issue because hon. Members on both sides of the House are determined to do something about it. That is why the British and Irish Governments are determined to do something about the issue, and it is why the Government have proposed this structure—some aspects of which I disagree with.
I would rather not be in the situation that we are in, but the reality is that the political system in Northern Ireland has broken down and we must replace it, which means getting talks started in Northern Ireland among people


who would not normally want to talk to each other. That is our problem and, although we cannot solve it, we can help those people talk about issues and return to the practice of conventional politics. If we do that today, I shall be delighted to have participated.

5 pm

Mr. William Ross: I have listened to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) in these debates with considerable respect, because he has made a fair number of very powerful, clear-headed and incisive speeches on the Bill—as he has on Northern Ireland in general over the years. But I must tell him to think again and to apply the logic that he normally applies to Northern Ireland, when he expresses the view that it is sensible and nearly right for the Government to take the central position between the competing opinions and positions of the parties in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne knows, as we all do, that no political party—not least his party—would simply apply that principle to the policies that the Government have put before the people or promoted and passed in the House. The reality is that, to go down the road that he mentioned—which the Government have followed for many years—would be to desert the need to make a reasoned judgment between what is right and what is wrong. It would also be to desert normal standards of logic and reason. I do not believe that we should accept that option.
The reality is very often that, when we are reaching a reasoned judgment on a question—not least a question such as that which confronts us in Northern Ireland—we must make clear and definite decisions. Such decisions will very rarely be in the middle of the road or in the middle of the competing demands of the parties. Every time another party is brought into the process, of course, the Government's central position changes, which is plainly wrong and cannot be defended.
I say right away that I welcome the Government's acceptance of amendment No. 47 because, when accepting it, the Minister said that one constituency list is not enough and that the parties must jump the hurdle of demonstrating wider support. We have asked for three lists, but one could have required half a dozen and the parties would have had to find one or two candidates to stand in each constituency. This requirement tells the parties in Northern Ireland the first hurdle that they must jump, and I am happy to see that the Government will insist on it.
My name is also attached to amendment No. 15. I did not, however, support it for the reasons that led the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) to table it. I supported that amendment in conjunction with amendment No. 155, which, sadly, has not been selected. That amendment stated:
Twenty delegates shall be deemed elected from Northern Ireland
and then divided proportionately. I think that that matter has been dealt with by a Liberal Democrat amendment, which is in a slightly different but less clear context later on in the Bill.
I take the liberty of touching on that matter—skating lightly over it, you will note, Mr. Morris, because I want to remain strictly in order—to draw attention to the fact that I want to introduce proportionality, as do the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for North Antrim, although in a rather cruder fashion.
I also wanted to introduce the hurdle of 2 per cent., which is low enough to allow anyone who is a serious contender in any constituency to be elected, but not so high as to make it extremely difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) mentioned a requirement of 5 per cent.; it is a matter of debate and argument.
We believe that there must be hurdles. The Government have introduced and accepted one hurdle. We are simply saying that one cannot drop one's sights so low that the normal standards of democracy and the elective system become distorted out of recognition—yet that is precisely what the Bill does. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that the only reason for the distortion is to bring into the process the people who have weapons. Those people not only have weapons and explosives, but they have demonstrated by their murders and violence over the years that they are willing to use them in pursuit of constitutional objectives.
So this will not be a real election. It will be an attempt to create a forum in which the gunmen and the murderers will have a reserved place. The Government would be far wiser to tell the people of the United Kingdom that that is exactly what they intend, and the people of the United Kingdom would then realise the extreme difficulties that the Government are creating in Northern Ireland because of that system.
I have tabled amendment No. 157, which I do not intend to press. Under certain circumstances, I believe that there would be merit in changing line 5, page 5 to state that a regional list could comprise up to 18 candidates, without a lower limit. It is a matter of debate and argument as to how one would wish to create a regional list, if at all. I tabled the amendment because it would allow the parties to select one extra candidate per constituency, if they so desired—but I shall not press it.
There are many able and constructive people in each constituency in Northern Ireland. They are busy people who are perhaps not all that interested in the hurly-burly of politics and the elective process, who would not normally take part in an election. If we are opening the doors to the gunmen and providing places for them, I do not see why we should not open the door rather more widely than the Bill does to such constructive people.

Mr. Peter Robinson: There have been a number of very valuable speeches on this issue, which follow on from our very useful debates yesterday.
I must say that I and other hon. Members were very angry at the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) on BBC radio this morning, when he suggested that Unionist Members were attempting to filibuster and nit-picking. He said that Unionist Members should not be trying to change the legislation, because the Government have presented a balanced Bill. That should not be the Government's attitude.

Mr. Trimble: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the attitude of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N.


Scott) to the Bill, which provides for elections, might have something to do with a notorious statement that he made on the eve of an election, when he was a Northern Ireland Office Minister? He told the people of Northern Ireland, "It doesn't matter how you vote; it won't make any difference."

Mr. Robinson: Yes; there seems to be a bit of an echo of that statement. I sat through almost all the proceedings yesterday and recall that there was a very short period in the debate when the shadow of the right hon. Member for Chelsea was in the Chamber. He left it as just as speedily as he left another scene.
However, leaving the right hon. Member for Chelsea to one side for a moment, I deal now with the Secretary of State's remarks about weighted majorities. I wish to make it clear that the weighted majorities that have been approved by a number of Unionist representatives have never in any instance been based on the composition of an elected forum. They have always been allowed for on a controversial or constitutional issue, when it is recognised that a vote of more than 50 per cent. is required.
As for what is broadly acceptable, I noticed that the Secretary of State was wriggling to get out of the criteria that had been established. The truth is that both the Unionists' proposal—the single transferable vote system—and that accepted by the DUP and the SDLP—the list system—were broadly acceptable. Something being acceptable is different from something being preferable.
The UUP would have preferred the STV system, and we would have preferred the list system, but I doubt whether either of our two parties would not have been fighting an election called under the system preferred by the other party. To that extent, both systems would have been broadly acceptable. I suspect that either would have been more broadly acceptable than the system that the Government have devised. As the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, their system is broadly unacceptable, which is not a good thing—far from it. The Government's duty is to gain the widest support from representatives in Northern Ireland for the proposals.
He has now left the Chamber, but the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said in a brief intervention that we should not concern ourselves too much with this democracy thing, and that what really matters is that we solve the problems. Of course, it is vital that the main aim is a resolution of the conflict. No one doubts that, but we still have to answer the question: who is going to be at the negotiations? What is the test to determine who should sit around the table?
There has to be a criterion on which to make such a decision, and if it is not the number of votes or the level of support within the community, it has to be that which the hon. Member for Hammersmith did not dare mention—the causing of trouble. Those who will sit around the table will be those who, if not mollified in some way, will bomb or shoot. We should never accept that as a criterion for sitting around the negotiating table. As soon as we accept such a criterion, we introduce for the future the proposition that those who, like the paramilitaries, are prepared to shoot and bomb, have found the way to get a ticket to the talks process.
I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was as disappointed as my colleagues and myself about the Government abandoning

the criteria relating to broad acceptance. It is an ominous sign for the future that the Government, having set out criteria for broad acceptance, abandon them. It gives no encouragement to political parties in Northern Ireland to pursue broad acceptability—the trendy terminology is now "sufficient consensus"—if the parties do not feel that, if they create that sufficient consensus, the Government will accept and run with it. This has been a bad example set by the Government, and I hope that it will not be repeated in future.
As for the amendments, I harbour no expectation that hon. Members who have not listened to our debate but who will go through the Lobbies to vote will understand the weight of the argument. I satisfy myself that we have won the argument, although I suspect that we shall lose the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 321

Division No. 104]
[17.15 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Trimble, David


McCartney, Robert
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. William Ross and


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Rev Martin Smyth.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Butcher, John


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butler, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Callaghan, Jim


Amess, David
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Ashby, David
Carttiss, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cash, William


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chidgey, David


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Church, Judith


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Barnes, Harry
Coe, Sebastian


Bates, Michael
Congdon, David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Conway, Derek


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Couchman, James


Betts, Clive
Cran, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Booth, Hartley
Davidson, Ian


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bowis, John
Dewar, Donald


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandreth, Gyles
Dover, Den


Brazier, Julian
Dowd, Jim


Bright, Sir Graham
Duncan, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Dykes, Hugh


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Burden, Richard
Evennett, David


Burns, Simon
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Burt, Alistair
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)






Fishburn, Dudley
Keen, Alan


Flynn, Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Forman, Nigel
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Forth, Eric
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Kirkwood, Archy


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Knapman, Roger


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


French, Douglas
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Fyfe, Maria
Knox, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Gardiner, Sir George
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Garnier, Edward
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Gill, Christopher
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Gillan, Cheryl
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Godman, Dr Norman A
Legg, Barry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lidington, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Gorst, Sir John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Lord, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Loyden, Eddie


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Luff, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Grocott, Bruce
Lynne, Ms Liz


Grylls, Sir Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
McFall, John


Hain, Peter
MacKay, Andrew


Hall, Mike
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Madden, Max


Hargreaves, Andrew
Maddock, Diana


Harris, David
Mahon, Alice


Harvey, Nick
Malone, Gerald


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Marland, Paul


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marlow, Tony


Hawkins, Nick
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Hawksley, Warren
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hayes, Jerry
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Heald, Oliver
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Maxton, John


Henderson, Doug
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hendry, Charles
Meale, Alan


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Merchant, Piers


Hicks, Robert
Miller, Andrew


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Mills, Iain


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Horam, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Moate, Sir Roger


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Morley, Elliot


Hunter, Andrew
Moss, Malcolm


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hutton, John
Mudie, George


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Paul


Ingram, Adam
Neubert, Sir Michael


Jack, Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Jenkin, Bernard
Nicholls, Patrick


Jessel, Toby
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Norris, Steve


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Ottaway, Richard


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Page, Richard


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Paice, James


Jowell, Tessa
Parry, Robert


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pawsey, James





Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stott, Roger


Pickles, Eric
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Sweeney, Walter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Sykes, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Powell, William (Corby)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Timms, Stephen


Reid, Dr John
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Rendel, David
Tracey, Richard


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tredinnick, David


Richards, Rod
Trend, Michael


Riddick, Graham
Trickett, Jon


Robathan, Andrew
Turner, Dennis


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
 Tyler, Paul


Roche, Mrs Barbara
 Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Walden, George


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wallace, James


Sackville, Tom
 Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wareing, Robert N


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watts, John


Sheerman, Barry
 Welsh, Andrew


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John



Whitney, Ray


Simpson, Alan
Whittingdale, John


Sims, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Skinner, Dennis
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Nicholas
Willetts, David


Soley, Clive
Wilshire, David


Spearing, Nigel
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Spink, Dr Robert
Wood, Timothy


Spring, Richard
Worthington, Tony


Sproat, Iain
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Mr. Gary Streeter and


Stern, Michael
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 4, line 25, leave out from 'on' to end of line 26 and insert '30th May 1996'.
The purpose of the amendment is to insert a definite date for the elections. There has been considerable speculation, but the Government have suggested 30 May as the date, and that seems to have been accepted. We therefore want to know why the Government have not seen fit to specify 30 May in the schedule. Setting a date in the Bill would impart some certainty to our proceedings; it would allow the parties to prepare for the elections, and it would also make it possible to make general preparations in regard to, for example, staffing and the organisation of security forces and police. It would convince the communities in Northern Ireland that elections would take place on that specified date, and would remove the fear that the Government might allow a delay.
Given that the Bill concerns entry to negotiations and that elections are the passport to those negotiations, we want the Northern Ireland communities to be reassured. We want the Government to tell us why the date cannot be included in the Bill.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I understand what has led the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and


others to table the amendment. Let me make it clear that the Government intend the elections to take place on 30 May, so that all-party negotiations can begin on 10 June. There are, however, technical reasons for not including the date in the Bill. Doing so would leave no room for manoeuvre in the event of delay caused by, for example, an election petition. We would be obliged to include a saving provision in the Bill to allow an election court to set another poll date, and that would be very troublesome. For that technical reason alone, I am unable to accept the amendment. In the light of the assurance that I gave the hon. Gentleman earlier, I hope that he will feel that moving the amendment has served its purpose and that he will agree to withdraw it.

Mr. Illsley: In view of the Secretary of State's reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert
'All parties may participate in the elections.'

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 74, in page 4, line 37, leave out from 'those' to end of line 38 and insert
'that can produce the written assent of not less than 500 electors'.
No. 14, in page 4, line 38, at end insert
'and those which subsequently register in accordance with arrangements prescribed by an order under paragraph 1'.
No. 67, in page 7, leave out lines 1 to 33.
No. 42, in page 7, leave out line 5.
Government amendment No. 142.
No. 11, in page 7, line 9, leave out '—DUP' and insert '(DUP)—Ian Paisley'.
No. 48, in page 7, line 26, after 'Party', insert '(SDLP) '.
No. 49, in page 7, line 27, leave out 'Robert McCartney'.

Mr. Canavan: Amendment No. 67 has been tabled in the names of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and me. What a team! The amendment has a broad church of supporters. Amendment No. 67 is consequential on amendment No. 94, because if all parties are allowed to contest the elections there will obviously be no need for the list of 30 parties in schedule 1.
It is surely a basic principle of democracy that any party, however large or small, should be allowed to contest elections. That has certainly been part of the tradition of British democracy. I do not know of a precedent in UK elections—I doubt that there is one—for a Government drawing up a list of approved parties which can contest an election and, by implication, saying that there are other parties or organisations which cannot.
Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will give a reason for the inclusion in schedule 1 of the list of parties, and will also explain how that list was arrived at. I have heard it said, although I do not know whether there

is any truth in it, that the Government thought that it was necessary to draw up a list of parties to contest the election because some of the larger Unionist parties were apparently thinking aloud about the possibility of subdividing themselves into various groupings, regional or otherwise, to try to maximise their representation at the negotiating table. If that is true, it would be more reasonable to look at the electoral system that is proposed in the Bill to see whether it could be amended to prevent such abuse—if indeed there was a risk of such abuse. I await with interest the Minister's reply.
In our debates on earlier amendments, suspicion and concern were expressed that, under the Government's proposed scheme, people who are or were associated with paramilitary organisations might get to the negotiating table. In some people's eyes, I suppose that the list in the Bill contains several examples of parties that in the past have been—some people might say, still are—associated with the paramilitaries on both sides of the conflict.
Over the past quarter of a century, many senseless, violent deeds have been perpetrated by paramilitaries on both sides, some of them in the names of the communities that the paramilitaries purport to represent. Like all hon. Members, I absolutely condemn those atrocities. We particularly condemn the murderous acts that have led to the loss of so many lives and to the injury of so many innocent people over the past 25 years or more.
We could adopt a purist approach by saying that none of the paramilitaries or former paramilitaries or their representatives should get to the negotiating table, or we could adopt a more realistic approach and say that if there is to be a lasting peace it is important to bring those people on board, especially if they have an electoral mandate. In that way, they would, we hope, learn to have more faith in the democratic process instead of resorting to violence or to the threat of violence that has been used all too often in the past.
He who is not without sin should not cast the first stone. Not long ago, some politicians crossed the border into the Republic of Ireland to engage in some kind of unlawful sectarian activity. Not long ago, another Unionist politician organised a mass demonstration of people holding gun licences to emphasise the power of the gun. But that is water under the bridge and it is important to look ahead. I hope that those politicians have learnt the error of their ways and that they will come to the negotiating table in the spirit of peace and reconciliation. I hope that they will try to encourage other politicians and people who were, perhaps, formerly engaged with paramilitary organisations to see the error of their ways, and will try to teach them the importance of using exclusively peaceful means to achieve their political objectives.
Any party, large or small, should be allowed to contest the elections. I hope that the negotiating body that will result from the elections will be sufficiently broadly based to ensure a peaceful and lasting solution.

Mr. Wilshire: I should like to speak to amendment No. 74, which stands in my name, and to amendment No. 67 which, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said, is in my name as well as his and that of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Provided that neither he nor his hon. Friend do what happened last night and mention Stalin in support of their


cause, I shall be grateful for their support. As the hon. Member for Falkirk, West has said, amendment No. 74 seeks to remove the concept of an approved list and would allow all parties or any party to stand. It would provide a mechanism for weeding out what can be described only as the nonsense parties that make a mockery of ballot papers.
Amendment No. 67 is purely consequential in that if one removes the concept of an approved list, the list is no longer necessary. The amendment would simply remove the list of approved parties.
My amendment No. 74 proposes that any party that can gain the support of 500 electors should be able to stand. I freely accept that the mechanism of 500 signatures may not be the best way of curbing nonsense parties, and I would be happy to contemplate a different mechanism. The group of amendments on deposits is clearly an alternative way and that may be more popular with the House than my mechanism.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Just as a matter of clarification so that I can more easily follow the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, when he asks for 500 assentors, does he mean in each of the eight constituencies or in Northern Ireland as a whole? I am not sure whether that is entirely clear.

Mr. Wilshire: Clearly, as the Government will press ahead with two lists and two mechanisms, it would be 500 in both cases, but, again, I freely admit that 500 might not be the right figure. The main point that I wish to make, however, is that, although the mechanism and the number of electors could differ, I am wedded to the principle that it is wrong for any Secretary of State to take power to decide which parties may stand in an election and which parties may not.
In simple terms, it is undemocratic to seek to do that. It is also bound to lead to gratuitous and unnecessary grief for a Secretary of State who sets out to decide which parties he approves of. As I said in the debate last night, the Secretary of State has enough trouble that he cannot avoid. Therefore, it is silly for him to seek to take more trouble unto himself in that way, which he can avoid.
At the heart of this matter is my strongly held view that it is dangerous for democracy if a Government license political parties, which is, in effect, what the proposal amounts to.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether the provision might be contrary to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which states that a Government shall not discriminate, and therefore subject to judicial review?

Mr. Wilshire: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Any mention of judicial review tempts me down a great avenue that I would rapidly find was unacceptable to you, Mr. Morris. My views on judicial review do not bear printing in Hansard at the moment, so perhaps I may just note the point. Others might want to pursue it. I would be interested to hear what the courts might say, and, if they also hold the provision to be undemocratic, on this occasion I say, "Power to the courts."
At the heart of the matter is the concept that it is dangerous for democracy to go down this route. Governments should never forget that they, too, are political parties and that a Government hold power—any power—because of their success as a political party. It follows, therefore, that, whatever a Government may say about their neutrality on these occasions, their input into such talks is the input of a political party as well as of a Government.
That may seem a fairly abstract point, but I suspect that it is not as abstract as it may seem to the Government. It probably starts to explain why the Government, knowing that they are also a political party, are making such heavy weather of handling its members in Northern Ireland. The "A Government is a political party" dilemma might explain why they are nervous about their representatives in Northern Ireland speaking, in effect, on behalf of the same party.
Whatever it might be, it is wrong for the party of Government to decide which parties they will recognise and which parties they will not. The only people who are entitled to decide which parties should be recognised are the electors. That is the essence of democracy: it is the people, not the ruling class, who should take that decision. That is why, therefore, the Bill's provision is fundamentally flawed.
The Government may decide that, when the people make their choice, it will be impossible for the allies of unreformed and unapologetic terrorists to be included in talks, but the correct way to deal with that is not to license political parties, but, as we said at length yesterday, to decide the terms for admission to the talks. Deciding which parties will be recognised and which will not is not the right way.
I accept that using signatories to determine whether there is any basis for support does not appeal to some people and that there are other ways, especially calling for deposits, but, on occasions such as this and even on other occasions, if I had to choose, I would prefer the route of seeking people who are prepared to sign a nomination paper than of allowing people with big bank accounts to put members forward, whether or not they could get any signatures. I do not consider 500 to be too high. Even my own party, when it was allowed to stand, received about 40,000 votes, so 500 does not seem to be an unrealistic target.
If we listen carefully to what the Government say, we note that the purpose of the elections is to establish for all to see who speaks for Northern Ireland's people, so I urge the Government, if they are trying to establish that, to reconsider accepting that it is wrong for them to try to impose control over who may stand to gain the support of Northern Ireland's people. The only acceptable control of the process must, if it is to be genuine, lie with Northern Ireland's electors.

Mr. Trimble: I understand the argument made by the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). We are dealing with some strange concepts hitherto unknown in terms of British electoral law, and I understand their distaste for the system that we have. I have every sympathy for the view expressed by the hon. Member for Spelthorne that it is dangerous for Governments to license political parties.


However, that consequence flows inevitably from the choice of a party list system. It is not a desirable or necessary consequence. It is inevitable only in the current circumstances, where a party list system is being introduced quickly, with inadequate time to put the necessary legislation and procedures on the statute book.
In a party list system, the focus is on the party. There must be some procedure to regulate political parties, or at least to regulate the use of their names. In every country where there are party list systems, which are common, there are procedures to regulate the use of names and to provide a regulation scheme for political parties.

Mr. Wilshire: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but can he not see that there is a big difference between regulating the name of a party that freely forms itself and regulating the formation of the party?

Mr. Trimble: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If he would allow me to develop my argument, he will find that we are not that far apart. The essence of my point is that we have arrived at this position because of a decision to introduce a party list system without there being sufficient time to do it properly. Therefore, it is being done in an undesirable way. At that point, the arguments of the hon. Gentleman and myself are probably getting close to each other.
The use of party names should be regulated by establishing a judicial procedure whereby a party that believes that its name is being used improperly can challenge the existence or the use of that name by other persons or parties. Looking at the list, I find that an obvious example is the body that suddenly came into existence in Northern Ireland—if it did so at all, which is not known—calling itself the British Ulster Unionist party. That name is close to that of the Ulster Unionist party. Under a system to regulate the use of party political names, which exists in some countries, it would be open to our party to commence proceedings against that other party for the improper use of its name. So there could be some form of judicial process dealing with the regulation of parties. If that course is taken, it is done outside the political circle. Some form of judicial or quasi-judicial procedure could be set up, which would not have the dangerous implication involved in Governments licensing political parties—a system which, like the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I believe that we should avoid.
Unfortunately, I believe that the decision to adopt a party list system was wrong and that it results in an unsatisfactory situation. Having reached that unsatisfactory situation, we must try to find a solution. That suggested by the hon. Member for Spelthorne was to have a number of assentors, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is not far away from one of the suggestions in our amendment No. 46, which has been selected for debate later. I merely want to draw attention to the similarity in principle between that amendment and amendment No. 74. Our amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are directed towards the same issue, and we shall debate them later. All the amendments stem from the problems caused by a party list system. Our amendments Nos. 42 and 49, which are included in this group, draw attention to the problem.
We have no evidence that the British Ulster Unionist party exists, but those associated with it may feel that it is unfair for us to concentrate the ire of our amendment

on them. We could easily have selected another body. In the list of 30 persons and parties, there are a number of bodies with which we are not familiar. Consequently, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland asking what evidence he had as to the existence of those groups and whether they were functioning as political parties. The answer has not yet appeared in Hansard, but my recollection of the reply that I saw yesterday evening—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—suggests that the only evidence was that the Northern Ireland Office had received a letter claiming that the party existed and wanted to be on the register.
While the hon. Member for Spelthorne considers it dangerous for the Government to license political parties, they are issuing licences to anyone who writes a letter. That is rather curious. It appears that the Government made no effort—again I look to the Minister to see whether he wishes to respond—to find out whether those who wrote the letters represent genuine parties. Those who write letters have, hitherto, got their name on the list, but those who do not write letters do not have their names on the list. That may cause some interest to various parties and may be behind the comment made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). As the legislation now stands, those who write the letters will not be required to do anything else to prove that they are genuine except to find the names of two persons prepared to be submitted initially to a constituency list and then possibly elsewhere.
That is unsatisfactory, and something needs to be done. We wait to hear from the Minister what that something should be. He knows that we have made various suggestions in later amendments which are directed to dealing with this. Something must be done to alert the public to what are and what are not genuine names.
In normal elections, the ballot paper presents the voter with the names of candidates and the description. In normal British elections, the focus has always been on the names of the candidates and little concern has been taken over the description. I think that I am right in saying that there was an election in England and Wales when six people who claimed to be members of the Social Democratic party, which no longer exists, all appeared on the ballot paper. That occurred because, as I have said, under British electoral practice, the focus is on the names of the candidates who will be active in their constituencies promoting themselves.
There is a potential solution there, and it arises in an amendment that has been selected for discussion later. I shall not discuss the matter further now. We need to move the procedure involved in these elections closer to that of normal elections. That would be a solution. Failing that, something else needs to be done and we want to hear what the Government have to say.
I should make some comment about amendment No. 49, which deals with a specific anomaly which must be cured. The present list refers to parties and independents. For independents, their name is given and for parties, the party name is given, but with one exception. Without any reflection on the person or the party concerned, we need consistency. I wait to hear what the Minister has to say. The purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the inconsistencies in the way in which the Government are proceeding. That inconsistency is wrong in principle. If we


have a party list system—although we disagree with that concept—the focus should be on the party, and if there have to be names, they should be the names of the candidates.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 14 and 11. I can see at once the difficulties that the Government had in framing legislation around the principles in the Bill, particularly in the schedule listing political parties. There are two factors which suggest that it is not as complex and cumbersome as it might look in the schedule. I rather suspect that there will be very few, if any, constituencies where the 30 names in part II of the schedule will appear on the ballot paper. Some of those parties will not present themselves in various constituencies.
The real test of whether we have produced a difficult system depends on the electors. They have a fairly simple task and have only to scan the list of parties and put a cross beside the party of their choice. So, with one exception, it is not too difficult for the electors. Where there are party names that can cause confusion, the elector can make the wrong choice and vote for a candidate unintentionally. Therefore, we must look at the list on the basis of what principles should determine the parties on it and how they appear. That is the basis of the two amendments in my name.
Amendment No. 14 is similar to that of the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I do not think that it is for Parliament to limit the political parties contesting an election. That would be a bad principle to establish. We are saying that, for ease, there should be a list of established parties in the schedule, but there should be a mechanism whereby others can be registered and duly nominated as a political party if they meet the criteria.
Amendment No. 11 is simply an attempt to fulfil the principle, which I intend to outline, of how parties should appear on the list. I can well understand the concern of hon. Members who represent the Ulster Unionist party that a political party called the British Ulster Unionist party might be confused with them. It is altogether reasonable for them to believe that, but the answer is not to wipe out the British Ulster Unionist party before it is born. Nor is the answer to wipe out the Christian name and surname of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney).
I would allow any political party to define itself as it wishes and provide the Ulster Unionist party with the ability to put itself on the list in a way that clearly allows the electors to know for whom they are voting. The UUP should be allowed so to do regardless of whether it defines itself through its leader, who has won elections in the past and will therefore no doubt be a vote grabber in future, or by any other way. We have chosen to attach the name of the leader of our party since we believe that there will be very little confusion among voters when they see his name in determining for whom they are voting and what political party they are supporting.

6 pm

Mr. Trimble: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is very happy to define his own party by the name of one person, but he should realise that it is not so easy for a party such as ours, which is a broad church.

Mr. Robinson: There are many different definitions that one can use for division, and "broad church" is undoubtedly one of them. I understand that all the members of the hon. Gentleman's party may not be as delighted as he to see his name on the ballot paper. I do not want to go into that or take a vote among those around him on the name on the ballot paper that defines his party. I do not want to provide the Ulster Unionist party with difficulties in determining that, but it does not have to define itself by the name of its leader. It can define itself in such a way that it is clear to electors which party they are voting for.
It would be altogether wrong if we were to disallow the hon. Member for North Down to present himself and his party on the ballot paper in the way in which he chooses. Equally, it would not be right to exclude the British Ulster Unionist party. Equally, the SDLP is entitled to place itself on the ballot paper as its amendment proposes. The party is known as the SDLP, so it would clearly be an advantage to have that name on the ballot paper, to remove confusion among the electorate.
The basic principle is that parties should be entitled to present themselves on the ballot paper in the way in which they choose. The Government might want to set down criteria for appeals against a political party stealing the clothes—even the name—of another political party. That would allow the Ulster Unionist party the right to appeal and be heard if it felt that someone was getting too close to its name. I trust that the Minister will accept that there has to be a principle—rather than simply a mechanism by which the Minister chooses and decides how parties should be defined on the list. That would be an altogether bad way in which to approach the issue.

Mr. McGrady: As many hon. Members have said. amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are an attempt to tidy up the somewhat lengthy and difficult list of parties that have been born recently and not so recently in Northern Ireland.
I am not sure whether I can claim total proprietorship of amendment No. 49, since I see that the name of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party tops it, even though I did not invite his signature to it. Perhaps it is some printing error. I should like to assure the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) that there is not a gang of parties to remove his Christian name and surname from the list. The two amendments, and amendment No. 40, which has not been selected, aim to remove the anomaly of independents listed in lines 13 to 18 of part II of schedule 1. Their purpose is simply to clarify matters and to provide an even playing field for the parties in the electoral contest.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, clearly described the difference between the proposed election and the normal type of election. That difference was brought about by his request and that of his party that there be a test of party strengths in Northern Ireland, not of the strengths of individual candidates, which would in total amount to the strength of a party. The proposed system is because of the request of parties that thought that the electorate should be given a chance to show their support for the party rather than for the individuals who may or may not participate in negotiations.
Perhaps a proposed system could have dealt with that situation most efficiently. Certainly, nothing could be more mathematically accurate than having the entire


Northern Ireland electorate voting for a party of their choice, which would not be influenced either by local personalities or local difficult members of parties, but would be a genuine assessment of the support across Northern Ireland for individual parties.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) generously said, amendment No. 48 simply identifies my own party by that which it is commonly known: the SDLP. The Committee will appreciate that the Social Democratic and Labour party is quite a mouthful and would not fit into a soundbite on television or elsewhere.
Although we are not allowed to debate amendment No. 40, which would remove the independents, I should like to refer to it because the independents do not represent parties. I understood from listening to the comments on the radio by, for instance, independent Kerr and independent McMullan—I am subject to correction—that they did not want to be listed as parties for the purposes of the election. They simply wrote to the Northern Ireland Office asking questions about the election and what would happen.
The independent Kerr went so far as to say on radio that he had not made up his mind whether he would participate in the election, but that now he had been given the opportunity, he might consider it. In making that decision, he might be under the shadow of his former party membership, but that is a problem for him, not me.
That shows that, by public proclamation by independents Kerr and McMullan, two parties on the list do not exist. How can we legislate to include parties that do not exist?

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman assist me?

Mr. McGrady: I do not know until I hear the question.

Mr. Ross: Are any of the other parties listed also figments of the imagination of the Northern Ireland Office?

Mr. McGrady: I am not able to advise the hon. Gentleman, but I thank him for his intervention.
I did not contact anyone, I merely listened to radio reports on which the two independent party representatives spoke. There seems to be a No Going Back party. I wish we had a party that was going forward rather than backwards.

Mr. Peter Robinson: There is—the DUP.

Mr. McGrady: Well, perhaps.
Will the Minister tell us whether, if it is proper to do so, the nomenclature in the schedule is statutorily bound to be on the ballot paper, or whether the list is an indication of parties that may describe themselves on the ballot paper as they so wish, as is normal, although the descriptions should be one-liners, without a plethora of names attached to them.
On the basis of simply tidying up, I recommend amendments Nos. 48 and 49. I apologise to the leader of the Ulster Unionist party for the fact that his name has been unwittingly, and perhaps unwillingly, associated with the SDLP in connection with amendment No. 49.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I shall respond to amendment No. 49, as my name has been bandied about. By my presence, I physically demonstrate that I am not a figment of anyone's imagination; as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is aware, I really do exist. As for the nomenclature to be assigned to the individual parties, I simply submitted to the powers that be a name: "UK Unionist Party—Robert McCartney". Until what I have described as an electoral Caliban was thrust upon me through the medium of the Bill, it had not been my intention to stand as a party at all—[Interruption.] No, I had no intention, despite the aspirations of the hon. Member for South Down. If he wants to intervene now, I will give way to him.
I simply submitted the party name under which I wished to contest the election, and the Secretary of State included it in that form in the list in part II of schedule 1. It seems somewhat surprising that using one's own name as part of the basis on which one seeks to be elected should be the subject of even a mild degree of odium from the two largest established parties. It is rather surprising to find the Social Democratic and Labour party in some sort of association with the Ulster Unionist party, saying that it wants a level playing field. Premier league giants are battling with someone who in terms of electoral support is a fourth division minnow. I can conclude only that the fear—

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: Not at the moment.
I can conclude only that those giants of the electoral circus must think that they have something to fear. However, being a true and proper democrat, I wish to make an offer to them, and to make it clear that I have no objection whatever to their being afforded any indulgence that the Secretary of State may unwittingly or otherwise have afforded me.
Let us take the Social Democratic and Labour party, for example. Incidentally, amendment No. 48 reveals that that party wishes to be described by another title—"SDLP", which is not anyone's personal name. If the Social Democratic and Labour party wished to append a description to its name, so that it read, "Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)—Mr. John Hume", I should be happy to indulge it. And if the Ulster Unionist party wanted to have the name "Mr. Trimble" emblazoned in high colour after its normal title, I should be happy for that to be done.
Apart from those who deliberately try to confuse or mislead, I believe that everyone should be entitled to whatever description he or she wishes. I would certainly want all the other parties to be afforded the right to be described in whatever manner they think will best advance their opportunities with the electors. That seems to me the basis of the democratic principle. I therefore invite the House to oppose amendment No. 49, which seems to be without fairness or principle.

Mr. Wilshire: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman finishes, may I ask him, as an eminent lawyer, to help me out of a legal difficulty? He appears to be suggesting that in wanting his name to remain, he is really standing as


himself. I am pleased to see that. However, my understanding of a political party is that it consists of more than one person. It seems like a legal conundrum if an individual stands as himself, keeping his name, yet also stands as a party. I am sure that there is a wonderful explanation, and I think that we would benefit from hearing it.

Mr. McCartney: I must take the scales from the eyes of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who seems to have an intellectual difficulty. That difficulty should be ascribed to the procedures that the Government have offered for the election, rather than to me. If I am to contest the election I have a twofold function. First, there is the question of being elected as a constituency representative in one's own constituency; then there are the bonus brownie points—the possibility of collecting two additional seats from the 20 freebies that are undemocratically oscillating in the distance, even in my own seat of North Down. It therefore becomes necessary for me to become somewhat diffuse and to form myself into a party, so that I can have listed members in a constituency and people will have the opportunity to vote for me in that constituency. I could then boost my Province-wide vote, creep unwillingly into the top 10, and secure an additional two seats.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: By virtue of the amendment that has been accepted, the hon. and learned Gentleman will now have to stand in more than one constituency.

Mr. McCartney: I accept that under amendment No. 47, I will have not only to bifurcate but to triplicate—[Interruption.] I shall try to jump over the four and get into the five bracket, at least.
For the reasons that I have explained, it has become necessary for me to describe myself as a party. But—the hon. Member for Spelthorne has finally tumbled to the fact—because of the format of the election I shall have to have other people in other constituencies. That is why I have, as it were, turned myself into a company.

Mr. Wilshire: A limited company?

Mr. McCartney: Unlimited, for the purpose of the election. I hope that that explanation will assist the hon. Gentleman in his deliberations.

Mr. William Ross: This has been an entertaining debate, but it has been entertaining simply because of the farcical situation that faces us. I was rather sorry that the hon. and learned Member for North Down did not give way to me earlier—we have all been giving way to one another a lot—because if he had I would have tried to assure him that we would not in any way try to down him as a minnow. What we wanted was a system that accurately portrayed the party, so that the electorate to whom he was appealing would know clearly for whom they were voting. We would not want any of his votes to go astray.

Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: No, I shall not return the pleasure.
At the end of the day, the farcical situation concerns a very serious subject. The amendments highlight the confusing nature of some of the names now being used. I have no doubt that if the matter is forced to a vote we shall carry the Liberal Democrats with us, because they have the most vivid memories of the "Literal Democrats". I would have thought that, in this case at least, they would want to ensure that a sensible arrangement is made.
The Liberal Democrats, like hon. Members in every other party in the House, are aware that an argument has been raging on the subject at United Kingdom level for several years. A Home Office committee has been trying to resolve the question of party names and the right of individuals to them. The legal position on party names in the United Kingdom was set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I commend his remarks to the House because this is a serious issue. People are reputed to be changing their names to challenge sitting candidates. There is no end to the ramifications. This is a United Kingdom problem that must be resolved in a sensible fashion so that people know for whom, and for what policies, they are voting.
I was astonished at some of the remarks in the debate. We were told about the system of letters coming into the Northern Ireland office. Hon. Members will know about two parties that are missing: the Ulster Popular Unionist party, whose sole Member of Parliament died some time ago—

Mr. Trimble: It still has two councillors.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend tells me that that party still has two councillors, but its name does not appear on this list so it is apparently prepared to give up the ghost. The Ulster Liberals seem to have vanished into the mists of time—there is no sign of them. However, two parties that should have appeared on the list are missing. First, there is that wonderful character who keeps writing to hon. Members and signs himself "anonymous". There is also the writer of unsigned letters. We do not have anonymous or unsigned on the list. I wonder how they come to be missing. I am not too worried because they will probably turn up before we get to the end of this process.

Mr. Peter Robinson: There was a statement in the newspapers a few weeks ago that the Ulster Popular Unionist party has decided to close. I think that there are now two independents, while one member wisely joined the Democratic Unionist party

Mr. Ross: He is no doubt hoping to be elected. Let us see how he gets on.

Mr. McNamara: Has not the hon. Gentleman missed out disgusted of Tunbridge Wells?

Mr. Ross: He does not live in Northern Ireland. We also miss the United Kingdom Labour party.

Mr. John D. Taylor: And the Irish Republican Socialist party.

Mr. Ross: We are also missing the IRSP but I do not want to go on with this because I am getting too far from the amendment.
The House will have noticed at least six parties that use the name Unionist in their title in the list in the Bill. That is because of the connotations and attractions of that name in Northern Ireland. It is attractive because it sets out the basic philosophy of the great preponderance of folk who live in Northern Ireland—hence the use of the term "Official Unionist" when there have been quarrels within the body of the Unionist party about who was the correctly selected candidate.
Every party has its rallying banner. For the Unionist electorate, it is the word "Unionist". There might be a blue torch or a red rose overhead. For the DUP, there is not only the word "Unionist" but the name of its leader. The name of the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) also features. The SDLP has its preferred option. No doubt the Alliance party would want its name to appear on a yellow background. Those things are used by parties as aids to electoral success. That is why they want to use specific titles and symbols. They should be all treated exactly the same. Whatever is put down for one party should be put down for the others. This debate draws that problem to the attention of the Government and we expect some action from them to ensure that all parties enter the process on a level playing field and that there will be no attempts to confuse the electorate.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: I shall give way if the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to finish this point. I tabled an amendment, which was sadly not selected, saying that the Secretary of State should have the right to refuse a party.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that if an amendment is not selected he cannot talk about it.

Mr. Ross: If the Government had considered the possibility of refusing to accept names which might have caused confusion and taken upon themselves the full weight of the burden that they have partially accepted, the merits of the view that I was trying to express would have been apparent. That might have been the way around the problem of confusing names on the list. Some of the names, which I believe are figments of the imagination of certain individuals, would not have appeared on the list. They would have had to appear as independents or under another name.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he think of anything less than confusing to the electorate of Northern Ireland than a candidate standing under his own name?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should examine the telephone book: he would find a dozen other Robert McCartneys.

Miss Kate Hoey: We are breaking much new ground with the elections in Northern Ireland and their procedures and we are changing the rules as we go. As far as possible, we should try to stick to some basic principles. One basic principle is that political parties of whatever shape or form should have the right to call

themselves what they like. That is especially true of the main political parties, which over 25 years have had to face great challenges and deal with problems that mainland parties have not had. To legislate that the Social Democratic and Labour party cannot have SDLP after its name or that the United Kingdom Unionist party, which has admittedly not been going so long but nevertheless has a representative in the Commons in the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), should not be allowed to call itself what it likes, amounts to nit-picking.
I hope that the Minister will say that the parties which sit in the House should at least be given the right to put their names on the ballot paper in whatever way they wish. If the Democratic Unionist party wishes to have its leader's name on, or if the Social Democratic and Labour party wants to be known as the SDLP, that should be allowed. I hope that we shall have sense and not nit-picking.

Mr. Trimble: On that principle, would the hon. Lady accept that on the constituency lists the names of the parties' candidates for those constituencies should appear on the ballot papers?

Miss Hoey: I favour the electorate knowing as much as possible about who will represent them at the end of process. It is a pity that we are not able to do that more. I would be happy for that to happen if it satisfies people, but I expect that the Minister will come up with some reason why it cannot happen.
We are getting more and more away from a system of elections that most people understand. This Parliament should not try to legislate against Northern Ireland parties calling themselves what they want. I hope that the spirit of the amendments will be accepted by the Minister so that the matter will not be decided by the votes of hon. Members who have not listened to the debate—few have been listening—and who will vote as their party tells them. I hope that the Minister will accept that parties represented in the House, which have already gone through the electoral process, stood up for the people of Northern Ireland and been democratically elected, should have the right to call themselves what they wish.

Mr. McNamara: We are avoiding considering the position of the electors—the people who are being asked to make the choice. It has to be our duty to give the greatest possible amount of information to the individual elector and to seek to avoid confusion. There have been examples in Great Britain of how confusion has been deliberately caused by candidates. There was the famous case in the south-west of England which affected the Liberals.
Our duty must be to do what will most help the electors. In an ordinary election we have first the name of the candidate and then whatever party description he wants, so that people are generally not confused. However, in this particular case we shall have the names of the parties, some of which can be confusing. We have heard the list of six Unionist parties. All those parties could claim parts of the titles of the other parties. Depending on how they regard the British Unionist party, I am sure that the official Unionists would regard themselves as British and part of the British Isles—

Mr. Ken Maginnis: There is no official Unionist party.

Mr. McNamara: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am sure that the Ulster Unionists would object to the use of the word "British" as if it were a description that did not apply to them. I understand that. If we are to help the electorate, we must give them as much information as possible, particularly if we are theoretically electing parties and not candidates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and the leader of the official Unionist party, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), asked correctly why people should not know who is the candidate in their constituency. That was the question that I intended to ask the Minister. If the names are not to appear on the ballot paper, what directions will be given to the electoral registration officer for Northern Ireland to ensure that there is sufficient information in the polling station so that people can be aware who are the candidates for particular parties? The selection of a candidate, especially if he is near the top of the list and may be elected, might be a reason why an elector may not want to vote for a particular party and may switch his vote. He may have a personal thing about the candidate. So it is important that the elector should be given the fullest possible information.
We cannot have the information on the ballot paper, so what will happen in the polling station to ensure that information is brought directly to the attention of the elector in a way agreed by the parties? How will we ensure that the information is not lost in the great mass of close black writing on white paper which people will have to spend hours going through? There is a duty on the Government to take sufficient time and effort to ensure that the individual elector has the fullest possible information.
To return to the point that was originally raised, it should be for the parties to decide the name by which they go. It should not be the decision of the Secretary of State. If sufficient information is readily and easily accessible to the electors at the polling station, in a form which they can easily read, they should be able to distinguish among the names of the candidates which party most meets their needs.

Mr. Ancram: We have had an interesting and, on occasion, entertaining debate. There has been a large number of broad churches floating around the Chamber—rather more than usual—and some strange alliances have been formed. The question that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked at the end of his speech will arise under amendment No. 43, and I would rather respond to it then than do so out of sequence now.
It is fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne who is not in his seat, made a strong case on why a Government should not decide who is a party—"should not license parties" was the phrase he used. The comprehensive nature of the list printed in part II underlines the fact that the Government sought not to prescribe or license parties but to put in legislation, for reasons which I shall come to, as comprehensive a list of potential parties as possible, so that people were not

prevented from putting themselves forward as parties because a Government had decided that they should not do so.
It was in that spirit that, on 1 April, I sent to a number of parties a consultation document. We also published it so that other parties were aware of it. We made it clear that we were trying to meet the sort of problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has outlined, and to do so in a way that would satisfy the need for parties, in the words of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, to have a say in how they would appear in the legislation, and, as a result—to answer the point made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)—how they would appear in the election documentation and on the ballot papers.
In paragraph 6 of the consultation paper, we said:
The Government intends that the list in the legislation should be as inclusive as possible of parties likely to be able to attract a significant degree of support, and to contribute to that process".
I had referred earlier to the process.
Subject to representations, the Government will incorporate in the legislation that is presented to Parliament the list of the parties in the form in which they appear in Annex 1.
That was the rather shorter list. We continued:
Names of the parties will be set out on ballot papers, and in other election documentation, in precisely the form in which they appear in the legislation.
As a result of that consultation paper, a number of representations were made to us, some from parties which did not appear in the original list and others from parties which did and wished to have the name altered. Everyone had the chance to respond. We made it clear in the consultation that we required the information by 10 April so that we could proceed to legislate.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall cannot accuse us of nit-picking, when we gave an open and public opportunity to parties to make representations to have the name altered or to be included in the process. Those parties which failed to do so cannot now sit in the Chamber and complain that they were not given that opportunity.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) took advantage of that opportunity and made representations to us about how he wished his party's name to appear. So I hope that the House will accept that this has been not a surreptitious exercise on the part of the Government but an open exercise, with full consultation and every opportunity for the parties to make representations.
It is true to say that the amendments reveal disquiet in the Committee about our decision to name parties that may participate in the election provided for in the Bill. I use those words advisedly, because all that the schedule does is allow parties to participate. It does not force them to participate. The fact that they are on the list will not mean that they will appear on every ballot paper. It does not mean that we are convinced that they are parties.
As the hon. and learned Member for North Down rightly pointed out, to be a party one has to have more than one candidate. I should be loth to argue that a political organisation that can pull together two or, in this case, up to eight candidates to apply for all the available representation in the forum and negotiations is not a party. So it is right to underline that fact.
We have done it in this way for a simple reason: we have no system of political party registration in the United Kingdom, as the hon. Members who tabled the


amendments know. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that that matter should be looked at urgently. However, that is the position at the moment. Therefore, it is not possible to legally define who is a party and who is not a party. On this side of the Irish sea, we have the advantage that we stand as individuals, and whether the Labour party decides to call itself the Labour party or new Labour is not a matter of legal challenge at elections.
When a list system is used, it is important that the names of the parties are securely registered in one form or another before an election takes place. It is simply not possible to say—as does the amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)—that all parties should participate in the election, because the word "party" has no basis in law. Our task was to devise a method of getting those who wished to participate on to the ballot paper, if that was their desire.
The hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked—I shall paraphrase their amendment—why we could not have provided for a party registration scheme under subordinate legislation. We closely examined that, but we could not introduce such a scheme without risking the close attention of parties that might simply be out to spoil the election.
I wonder what the hon. Members would think if they arrived at the place of registration to register their party and found that they were the sixth person to arrive that morning to register as the DUP. Under United Kingdom law, they would have no more right to that name at that point than any other group of individuals. Of course, the hon. Gentlemen would protest at the hijacking of their label.
The legal advice we received was that we could not have got that matter before the courts and resolved in time for the election. We were told that the poll would go ahead with whatever names had been lodged via the registration process, and there would have been a recipe for potential chaos had we proceeded in that direction. Reference has been made to the Liberal party and its experiences with the Literal Democrats. I should have thought that, rather than sympathising with the amendments, they would see the purpose in operating in the way we have.
A decision was taken to include in the Bill those who may participate. We sought to be as inclusive as possible in this elective process, and we opened up the inclusion procedure to consultation. A number of individual groups responded, and the names that appear on the list under part II are there as a result of the responses.
It is adequate testimony to our desire that the election should be as inclusive as possible that we have accepted those representations and left it to practical reality as to how parties put forward names to decide who are parties in terms of who will stand at the election. The list seeks to set out those who are eligible to be parties if they so wish to proceed.
To an extent, I agree with what the hon. Member for Upper Bann said; that is, that in the time available—we had time constraints in this and I make no secret of that—we have pursued the best solution possible so far as making the process inclusive is concerned. I regret that, although we looked for more democratic ways of doing this, we could not find any that were workable within the

time. I think that there has been sufficient time for all who were interested to register their views on participation. We had a reasonable period of consultation, and many people took advantage of it.
The Government amendment in this list is a result of a failing on our part. I refer to amendment No. 142, which inserts the Communist party of Ireland on to the list. It made representations, but, due to an administrative error in my Department, it was left off the original list. It then made further representations to us to point out that it had made its representation in time. Because its letter was mislaid, it has now been put on the list. I believe that it would have been wrong not to do so.
6.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has an amendment that refers to assentors. We gave some consideration to this matter. I think that we are all concerned to see that, in the actual practice of the election and the way that it works out, we do our utmost to prevent frivolous parties from standing.
It was for that reason that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was pleased to accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Upper Bann that sought to provide that parties that wished to be on the regional list should put up at least two candidates in three constituencies, thereby indicating the seriousness of their intent. I hope that hon. Members will accept that that was a genuine response to a concern that is reasonably widely felt.
The question of assentors is difficult one. The hon. Member for Spelthorne said that 500 assentors might be too many. I think that, in our parliamentary elections, we have to put down 10 assentors—one proposer, one seconder and eight others. I have fought seven general elections, and I know that quite often there is considerable difficulty in ensuring that those names are right—they have to be validated by the returning officer. I would have sleepless nights if I were the person who had to produce and validate 500 names.
I refer to the general purpose that we have been pursuing in relation to these elections—that is, we are trying to make the elections inclusive. We are trying to reduce the burden on the smaller parties in relation to them standing. Elections are not very difficult for a big and well-organised party—there tend to be party machines that are ready to go into operation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) laughs at the idea of party machines. In the 20 years that I was involved in Scottish politics, a well-oiled machine worked in his part of the world. It would be wise for him not to make much more comment about the value of party machines in politics.
I am making the point that there are many parties that should have the ability, if they so wish, to stand in these elections, but that they would regard a number of the things that we take for granted as burdensome, and, in some cases, they would stop them standing. We have tried to reduce those burdens to a minimum. I think that the imposition of a requirement for assentors—whether it be 500 or fewer—would discriminate against the smaller parties in terms of the clerical work involved.

Mr. William Ross: The Government are saying that they do not want 500 assentors or 100 assentors. How


many assentors will they require? Surely it will not be a case of people going in with a nomination form with their name on it and nothing else.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must remember that this is a party list system—it may be on a constituency basis, but it is a party list system. Therefore, he must take cognisance of the concession willingly made by my right hon. and learned Friend in accepting the need for parties to put up in three seats to qualify for the regional list. That was an attempt, in a non-discriminatory way—one that merely sought out the seriousness of the commitment of the party—to ensure that the frivolous parties were excluded. For that reason, we are not looking at the number of assentors, because we think it is burdensome.
I have listened to some of the representations made about the amendments. I think that I was invited by the hon. Member for Vauxhall to be generous and to accept the amendments, but some of them counter each other. That indicates some of the difficulties that would have arisen had the Government decided to operate on the basis of exercising our judgment rather than allowing parties to make representations to us and putting them on the desk.

Mr. McGrady: I asked the Minister a specific question, and I hope that he will not sit down before he responds to it. I asked him whether it is the intent that the way that the parties are listed and described in part II of the Bill is how they will appear on the ballot paper. Will he take any exception to that? In other words, he appears to be rejecting my party's simple amendment to use the letters SDLP. Will he answer that question before he sits down?

Mr. Ancram: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I answered it earlier, and referred to him when I did so. I said that we made it clear in the consultation document, and I was confirming again today, that the names that would appear on the list in the Bill would be those that would be set out on the ballot paper and used in other election documentation. The hon. Gentleman or his party was sent the consultation paper with that in it. Other parties took advantage of the consultation period to change the designation that would appear on the ballot paper.

Mr. McGrady: It was not made clear in the communications that the name of the party that was to respond would be the description and detail that would appear on the subsequent ballot paper. There is no connection between a piece of correspondence and a piece of legislation regarding these elections. It is totally unreasonable of the Government not to accept a simple amendment, inserting "SDLP" either in substitution for Social Democratic and Labour party or in addition to it. It harms no one; it affects no one. It shows the prejudice with which the Government are approaching this part of the schedule. It is appalling.

Mr. Ancram: We set this out clearly and for good reason, because we accurately foresaw that, if we did not follow that procedure, when the Bill was considered in the House of Commons, one party would say, "Remove this" and another would say, "Do that," and ultimately a

subjective judgment would need to be made, and one party would accuse those who took the decision of having favoured another party.
We deliberately set matters out very clearly. I sent out the document—with a covering letter to the hon. Gentleman's party and to other parties—saying:
Subject to representations, the Government will incorporate in the legislation that is presented to Parliament the list of parties in the form in which they appear in Annex 1"—
and that is what has happened in regard to the hon. Gentleman's party.
Names of the parties will be set out on ballot papers, and in other election documentation, in precisely the form in which they appear in the legislation.

Mr. Trimble: We have the basis for some misunderstanding here. The Minister has read from the letter, and the sentence that he just read refers to the names of the parties. We rest content with the name of our party, but we tabled amendment No. 49 to confine party names to party names. Consequently, because of the way in which the Minister has interpreted the response to that letter, we are in an unbalanced situation.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman heard the speech by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who said that that was the name by which he wished his party to be known for the purposes of this election. That position was available to all the parties.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Hume: rose—

Mr. Ancram: May I finish this point?
I am reading from the letter I wrote covering the consultation document. I said:
The Government are of course ready to listen to representations on the proposals relating to the designation of parties and individuals; but because of the tight timescale for legislation, they would need to be received by noon on 10 April.
Many parties took advantage of that.

Mr. McNamara: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about his legislation, but we are here today to examine his proposal, hear argument and discover how best to meet the needs of electors and the parties involved.
Now that the Minister has met his timetable, received representations and presented his prepared legislation to Parliament, Parliament is able to adopt a broadly non-partisan position and allow the parties to say what position they want to hold. Then the DUP can have what it wants, the SDLP can have what it wants, and the Ulster Unionists can have what they want. It is not a sufficiently major issue for the Minister to stand so forcefully on it that he pre-empts the right of Parliament to change it.
The Minister may say that, if that is the way we feel, we should force our amendment to a Division, but we know what powers there are. We do not seek to do so. We seek general democratic agreement. We ask the Minister to reconsider, and, if he does not feel that he can do so now, consider giving an undertaking to introduce


an amendment in another place to meet the representations made by the parties. I know that he has a tight timetable in the other place, but I am sure that all Government amendments would be taken.

Mr. Ancram: I think the hon. Gentleman realises that it is not as simple as that. There are other amendments in the group. Were Ito take the view that the hon. Gentleman takes—if those parties want it like that, let them have it—I suspect that I would meet strong opposition from other parties in the House.

Miss Hoey: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but we believe that other parties would object strongly to some of the other amendments that have been tabled.

Mr. Peter Robinson: rose—

Mr. Hume: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I give way to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume).

Mr. Hume: Are you telling me, Minister, that we cannot call ourselves the SDLP on the ballot paper? Is that what you are telling me? You are asking me to believe that this is a serious election. Given that the Democratic Unionist party is DUP, the Progressive Unionist party is PUP, the Ulster Unionist party is UUP and the Ulster Democratic party is UDP, I am sure that none of the other parties would object to us calling ourselves the SDLP. That is the amendment that we have tabled—amendment No. 48. Is there some other reason that you will not allow us to call ourselves what we are known as?

Mr. Ancram: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will accept it, that we were trying by this consultation to avoid a specific situation. I have to say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—[Interruption.] I have to say to the—

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ancram: I will in a second.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Foyle—and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, now that he has returned to his seat—that we adopted that procedure to avoid the tabling of competing amendments in the House of Commons. Ultimately, the House of Commons must and can decide, but we chose that procedure to avoid the need to take invidious decisions, which might lead to accusations of preference or favour. If hon. Members are telling me that they believe that all or some of the amendments are acceptable and no one opposes them, I should be very interested to hear it.

Mr. Peter Robinson: rose—

Miss Hoey: rose—

Mr. Robert McCartney: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, East.

Mr. Robinson: I support the view expressed by the SDLP that it should be entitled to define itself as it wishes. The Minister's argument against the SDLP is that it did not respond to his communication requiring an answer by 10 April by saying that it wanted to be described as the SDLP. My party did respond, however, and the communication that I have before me from my party—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

Mr. Robinson: The communication that I have before me asked for the Democratic Unionist party to be described in terms as it is in the amendment, with the party leader's name on it.

Mr. Ancram: I shall hear the other hon. Gentleman before replying.

Mr. Robert McCartney: When I received the correspondence to which the Minister referred, I understood it on the same basis as the Minister now suggests, and for that reason responded positively. Nevertheless, I believe now that, if there is unanimity in the House among the major parties concerned that they wish to be described in a specific way that they are now prepared to specify, it would be the wish of all those parties, including myself, that they should be permitted to do so. If amendment No. 49 is withdrawn, we are all of one mind that people and parties should be able to describe themselves as they wish.

Mr. McGrady: Sir Geoffrey, I propose to assist the Committee at this juncture by indicating that my party is prepared to withdraw amendment No. 49.

The First Deputy Chairman: I shall take note of that. I do not know whether it is intended to move that amendment.

Mr. Ancram: It may be helpful to hear from the Opposition at this point.

Mr. Worthington: There is much agreement, but the situation remains a bit of a mess, and we will not sort out the problem with competing amendments. Perhaps the major parties could get together before Report stage and agree to a formula that would command general approval.

Mr. Ancram: Sir Geoffrey—

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister must be allowed to respond.

7 pm

Mr. Ancram: I want to make a little progress. I said at the outset that we had heard about a number of broad churches during the debate—I think that another broad church is beginning to operate here. I think it is important


to take into account the feeling of the Committee. We have witnessed an interesting exchange, and the general view appears to be that the SDLP nomenclature was left out inadvertently.
As the SDLP is one of the parties that did not respond to my consultation paper about the issue, I am prepared to accept—but it must be on the basis that it is an exception; otherwise we shall get into all sorts of problems—amendment No. 48 tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and his colleagues, which would allow them to insert the initials "SDLP" in the Bill. I do so in recognition of the fact that that is the name under which that party is usually known. I think that that distinguishes the amendment from the others that we are considering at present.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman must come clean about the issue. I have said nothing in the debate so far. I attended the Minister's first meeting, when we made strong representations to him that the name of a person—specifically, that of the party leader—should appear with the party name. The right hon. Gentleman knew that that is what we wanted, and he told us that there was no difficulty: he said that parties could describe themselves as they wanted, but that the Government were not of a mind to include any names of party leaders on the ballot paper.
We were then asked to respond to the consultation document in writing, which we did. We pointed out that it was essential that the name of the party leader be included with the party names on the ballot paper, and we asked that that be done. The Minister has just said that he complied with the wishes of the parties who responded to the consultation document.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) led a deputation to the Minister, and he was astonished to see that the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) was on the document, but that mine was not. The Minister said that there was no reason why the problem could not be resolved. However, when the Bill was published, we were amazed to see that the Minister had not done as he promised. He must be fair to all of the parties in this place.
I support the SDLP's argument: people will be looking for the initials "SDLP" on the ballot paper. The Minister knows that my party faces an enormous difficulty as another political party—the Ulster Democratic party, UDP—has adopted a name whose initials are as close to those of my party as they can get. Therefore, we must distinguish ourselves. There is also the Independent Democratic Unionist party—though the Lord only knows who they are.
The Minister has said that he will allow the SDLP's amendment. I have proof that we wrote to the Minister about the matter, and that we did everything he asked of us. He is now saying that he will make a concession to the SDLP, but not to us. He must be fair.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The last thing I want to do is stifle debate, but the interventions are becoming increasingly lengthy—they are almost mini-speeches.

Mr. Ancram: I accept that, in a letter written by the party secretary, the DUP made representations that party

leaders' names generally should be included on the list. I think that the hon. Member for North Antrim will accept that that is what he asked for. However, all parties did not agree that that was the way it should be done—that is how the hon. Gentleman phrased it in the letter that I have in front of me.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Read the letter.

Mr. Ancram: I shall not begin reading out letters that I receive. The DUP accepted the designation of "Democratic Unionists—DUP". We have accepted that, like the other parties on the list, the initials of the SDLP should appear after the party name.
We decided that it would not be appropriate to include party leaders' names on lists of that sort. We took that decision not only for our own reasons, but because other parties made strong representations to us that they did not wish that to happen. We must try to draw the debate to a conclusion. I shall give way again to the hon. Member for North Antrim, as he has a right to be heard.

Rev. Ian Paisley: My party did everything that was asked of it. As the Minister knows, we said that other party leaders could do whatever they like—their names do not have to appear. However, we believe that it is vital to distinguish the DUP in that way. We made that point clear to the Minister. Why did he say at the next meeting that it was not a problem? As the name of the hon. Member for North Down appears on the list, the Minister said that he did not see why my name should not appear also. It is an important point: the Minister cannot make fish of one and flesh of the other.
The Minister has said that the SDLP did not reply to the consultation document when it was asked to do so. I accept the point that SDLP Members have made: it is not simply a matter of replying to a letter, but a serious matter involving the Committee's right to make a decision. If parties fail to respond by letter, will they be ruined for ever? I hope that the other parties will support the DUP on this important issue of principle. I repeat that we did everything that was asked of us. We said that we did not care what other party leaders did, but that it was essential for us. The Minister knows that.

Mr. Ancram: I accept that the hon. Gentleman made representations that party leaders' names should be put on the list. However, others made strong representations opposing that proposal. The last 10 minutes of debate have fulfilled my predictions—I arranged a consultation process in order to sort out the matters before the Committee stage, and avoid this type of situation.
I have listened to hon. Members, and I accept that the Committee wishes to see the letters "SDLP" appear after that party's name. The Government are prepared to accept amendment No. 48. However, I repeat—before the situation deteriorates further—that I am not prepared to accept any further amendments.

Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Sir Geoffrey. Almost all hon. Members are trying to achieve the same end, but we are in grave danger of legislating on the hoof. If the amendments were withdrawn, would you give an undertaking that you or Madam Speaker would certainly


allow the matter to be considered again on Report in an hour or so? That would allow common sense to break out and legislation to be drafted more sensibly.

The First Deputy Chairman: I would never dream of committing Madam Speaker to any action on Report.

Mr. Ancram: With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, the consideration of amendments is part of the process, and I have listened very carefully to what hon. Members have said. If I have got the feeling of the House wrong, the House has the ability to rectify that in the Lobbies. If the hon. Member for North Antrim feels that I am wrong not to accept amendment No. 11, he is entitled to test that in the Lobbies. I have said as much as I can on the issue. I am prepared to accept amendment No. 48, but I ask the hon. Members involved to withdraw the other amendments.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give way?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister has just said that he will not give way.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Geoffrey. The Minister has sat down. Do we have the leave of the House to continue the debate, having heard what the Minister has said, because points arise from—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need the leave of the House. The debate may continue.

Mr. McNamara: We have had a generous response from the Minister with regard to the SDLP, and I am grateful for the fact that the Government have accepted that point. However, the point that we were making was that it was the right of the parties to decide by which name they wanted to be known. The position now will be that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and his party will be able to put down the party leader's name for all to see, but another party, which specifically asked for that same right, will be denied the right. That cannot possibly be right.
I understand that there may be other reasons why it was felt that the party leaders' names could not appear, and that may have something to do with the success of certain individuals in elections. It may have been felt that if a certain person's name appeared, appended to a party, that party might get more votes because of past history than another party might perhaps get. It is a political and tactical way of dealing with the problem to say that no party leaders' names will appear, just the parties, but that principle has been breached by the position of the hon. and learned Member for North Down. In equity, and whatever one may think about the political opinions of any person or the political advantage that any political party may gain in any elections, everybody must be treated the same.
The Democratic Unionist party met each and every one of the criteria laid down by the Minister. Failure to accept the party's request would give it a cause to cry foul and say that the House is failing, in the drafting of electoral laws, to achieve equity among all candidates and all parties. I therefore urge the Minister to think carefully.

Once he allows the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Down to appear on the ballot paper as the leader of a party, the principle that he has laid down will be breached. He has not thought the issue through, and he will have to live with the consequences. I believe that the Minister must grant the same rights to the DUP.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister said that if everybody agreed that the SDLP should have its initials after its name, he would accept that. Will he come to the Dispatch Box and say the same for the DUP? Let us have the same test. I am a democrat, and if people say no, I shall accept it. But the Minister will sour relations in Northern Ireland with one section of the community, because one section of the community is now being discriminated against. I ask the Minister to do the same for the DUP as he did for the SDLP, because nothing could be fairer, and he will see the response of the House.

Mr. Robert McCartney: A possible way out of this dilemma might be as follows: the proposed legislation allows a nominator of delegates for every party that will participate in the election. That nominator of delegates will be specified by the Secretary of State on the advice, I assume, of the parties concerned. The name of each party could followed by that of the nominator. For example, the name of the Democratic Unionist party could be followed by, "Nominator of Delegates: Rev. Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley", and the SDLP's name by "Nominator of Delegates: Mr. John Hume", and so forth. That would meet the bill by not so boldly setting up a name with a party, but permitting the electors, with whom we should be most concerned, to associate each party with its nominators, as provided in the Bill. That would forward the intention of the legislation and also clarify the issues that are before the House. Most importantly, we would have equity among all the parties.
I invite the Minister to accept amendment No. 11, of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). It would be a good start to the negotiations if all the parties could agree about something in the House, even if that did not fit in with the Government's intentions.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister, when he referred to the means by which the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) had appeared in schedule 1, said that the hon. and learned Member had appeared in that way because that was the way that he had requested he should appear. The background to the Democratic Unionist party's position is that we met the Minister on 1 April—the day on which he released his consultation document, to which the hon. and learned Member responded and to which the SDLP did not. The minutes of that meeting make it abundantly clear that we asked time after time for the name of the leader of our party—specifically, the name of the leader—to appear on the ballot paper beside our name.
We argued the case, not because of the Independent Democratic Unionist party—it came along later—but because when the name of another political party was abbreviated to UDP, it was easily confused with the DUP. We wished to make it clear to those who would vote for whom they would be voting. Therefore, the identification of the leader of our party, along with the name of the party,


would make it clear whether they were voting for us or for the other party, if that were their choice. That was how we wished our name to appear on the ballot paper.
What rule of democracy is it that will not allow us to appear on the ballot paper and to seek votes from people under the name of our choice? We shall appear under the name of the Minister's choice, and that just is not acceptable. It is the right of every political party, and we have argued for that right for every political party, to add the name of the leader of the party to prevent confusion.
We have made it clear to the Minister that we want our name to appear as, "Democratic Unionist (DUP)—Ian Paisley." That is our choice and I hope that the Minister will not sour the debate by maintaining his position. That would go far beyond the debate, and I see no point in remaining in the House for the other stages of the Bill if the Minister will not listen to our requests for changes that will affect only our party. The Minister has accepted amendments from everybody else, including the Ulster Unionist party and the SDLP, but he will not accept amendment No. 11 from us about how we appear on the ballot paper.

Mr. Worthington: I am concerned that the debate is falling away from us a little, and it really does need pulling together.
Throughout the debate we have been as constructive as possible, and an easy solution is available. We may not agree with the solution, but, basically, all parties on the ballot paper should be on it on the same terms. There seems to be agreement that the parties should be able to name themselves, and there is probably agreement that they should be able to have the initials that they want after their names. Where there may be disagreement is whether the name of the leader should be on the ballot paper.
I have suggested that on Report—I am sure that with good will it could be organised—a principled proposition should be put forward, rather than alternative votes which will lead us into a greater mess than we are in at present. We accept the list of parties as they are described in the schedule, but a proposition should appear on the face of the Bill about what parties should be able to call themselves and what style they may use. I am convinced that by Report stage we shall not obtain agreement, but we could agree that the matter was being pursued in a principled way. That is what I propose to the House.

Mr. Harry Barnes: We are discussing a Bill that seeks to establish a forum and negotiations in Northern Ireland in order to bring people together and obtain agreement. Hon. Members from different political parties in Northern Ireland, and probably every other hon. Member who has spoken, apart from the Minister, either want certain amendments to be accepted and parties allowed to use the description of their choice, or the problem to be resolved by some other means and to be dealt with on Report.
The Minister must respond favourably either to the amendments or to the suggestion that matters can begin to be resolved on Report, and suggest how that will be done. Otherwise, he is setting the process off down the wrong road entirely and a fantastic dispute will emerge from the measure. There is agreement in the House on the areas that

matter and the Government should respond to the situation. They are supposed to be facilitating agreement on the issue, so that the House can reach a decision.

Miss Hoey: I rise briefly again because I do not think that the Minister answered the point that I made when I spoke earlier. I do not believe that the principle is about every party on the ballot paper being described in the same way. Surely the principle must be that political parties, particularly the main political parties that are represented here in the House, should have the right to describe themselves on the ballot paper as they wish.
It would be simple for the Minister to accept that all the parties represented here today could say how they wished to be described. If the Democratic Unionist party wants its leader mentioned, that is fine. If the Unionist party does not want its leader mentioned for some reason, that is fine. Surely the principle should be that individual parties represented here, which have already gone through the electoral system, should have that basic right. That is the principle, and the Minister did not reply to my original point.

Mr. Canavan: The debate would be unnecessary if the Government were to accept amendment No. 94 in my name, which would allow any party to contest the election, in which case we would have no need of the schedule, particularly part II. The Minister is being inconsistent. He said earlier that he was unwilling to accept that the name of the leader of the party together with the name of the party should appear on the ballot paper. Yet that has already been accepted, and not simply in the case of the UK Unionist party and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). Another seven parties are listed in the schedule, which appear to bear the names of individuals. Although they are described as independents, they are listed under the heading of "The Parties".
If the Minister is to be consistent, he should allow each party to decide how it will be described on the ballot paper. If he had accepted my amendment, all this could have been taken care of in the normal nomination procedure, whereby nominations would be invited, as they are at a general or local government election, and the various candidates, or in this case the various parties, would put the teams of candidates forward and the names of the parties and, if they wanted to put the name of the leader of the party on the ballot paper, so be it. It is rather strange and unjust for the Minister to be discriminating against some parties in this way.
The Minister said that my amendment No. 94 was not acceptable to the Government for various reasons which I did not quite comprehend. He said that it is the Government's intention not to proscribe but to get a comprehensive list in order to make the elections as inclusive as possible. If he were to accept my amendment and allow any party to contest the elections, surely that would make the elections far more inclusive than confining them to a list of 30 or so organisations that the Government have decided are parties. Who knows, between now and election day, or what could have been nomination day, other parties or groups of people may wish to contest the elections, but it will be too late to do so.
The Minister also said in justification for rejecting my amendment that the word "party" has no basis in law. That is a poor argument. He can, if he wants, accept my amendment and introduce a consequential amendment defining a party in law if he thinks that that is essential.
The Minister also said that once one goes down the road of the list system, one must go down the road of some form of registration of parties. That is fair enough. I accept that in principle. But there is no need for a statutory recognition of parties. There is no need for a statutory list of parties. Many countries operate a list system in their general and local elections without some form of statutory recognition of parties. That could be taken care of simply by the nomination procedure, whereby parties go along with their groups of candidates and put them down under a description that they choose.
I hope that the Minister will think again about amendment No. 94. If he is unwilling to accept it, he should be consistent and allow all parties to describe themselves as they so wish rather than by the diktat of ministerial decree or parliamentary statute.

Mr. Ancram: I have listened closely to the representations that have been made. As I said earlier, it was on the understanding that there was a feeling within the House that the SDLP should be allowed to add its letters after its name that I said that I would accept that amendment.
I have to say in all honesty that I cannot at the moment get a feeling for an equivalent degree of consensus in relation to a way forward on the matter that we have just been discussing, so I cannot alter what I said earlier.
However, I am prepared to suggest that between now and Report my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should consult the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties to see whether an acceptable formula can be arrived at, which can satisfy the concerns that have been expressed. It is certainly my opinion that we currently do not have that consensus.
As I said earlier, however, my intention and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is to create an inclusive process in which people will feel able to participate. It is in that spirit that I offer this consultation. If there is consensus, it obviously could be acted on on Report, with the indulgence of the Chair. I make that offer.
On that basis, I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments, other than those that I have said I shall accept.

Mr. Canavan: I am still very unhappy about the Minister's response—or, rather, lack of response—to my amendment. I shall certainly not withdraw it, but I do not want to press it to a Division.

Amendment negatived

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Did not the Minister invite hon. Members who tabled amendments to say before the vote what their responses would be to the offer that he has just made?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Question has been put and negatived.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I understood the Minister to say that hon. Members could withdraw their amendments now, that the Secretary of State would consult the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties, and that on Report there might be some provision to finalise the dispute that has arisen among us today. I am certainly prepared to withdraw the amendment in my name on those grounds.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We shall come to the amendment mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He will then have the opportunity to withdraw it, or otherwise.

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 5, line 1, leave out 'one constituency list' and insert 'three constituency lists.'.—[Mr. Trimble.]

Mr. Robert McCartney: I beg to move amendment No. 143, in page 5, line 3, leave out 'at least two and'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 156, in page 5, line 3, leave out
'and not more than five'.

Mr. McCartney: In general terms, schedule 1 provides that parties will have to field not fewer than two and not more than five candidates to stand in the constituency section of the proposed election. I am conscious of the fact that the Minister said that he was sensitive to the difficulties that face minor or smaller parties in fielding candidates and in complying with the exigencies of an election campaign.
The purpose of amendment No. 143 is to amend the clause so that parties may field not more than five candidates, which would give them the option of fielding not two candidates but one. It would therefore only be necessary for the smaller parties in the 18 constituencies to find 18 candidates, plus an additional eight candidates for the Provincewide section, which involves another 20 seats.
I think it is important that the smaller parties should be helped to field at least one candidate in every constituency because that would provide them with an opportunity to increase their Provincewide vote, thus qualifying for a place in the top 10 parties. Under the legislation, that would give them an additional two seats.
There seems to be no very good reason why the question of the number of candidates, up to the maximum that can be fielded, should not lie in the purview of the parties fielding candidates. Why should there be an obligation on those parties to field two candidates rather than one, particularly as amendment No. 47—which the Government have accepted—means that there is already an obligation on the smaller parties to field candidates in at least three constituencies as an endorsement of their good faith and seriousness of intent?
In those circumstances, I suggest that it should be made easier for parties that are serious and want to raise their Provincewide vote to a level that would permit them to


obtain an additional two seats. Such parties should be offered the facility of qualifying by fielding one candidate in each of the 18 constituencies.
It may be suggested—in some metaphysical manner—that if one is fielding only one candidate, one is not providing a list. That does not answer the issue at all, because one is providing a candidate, who will be one of a number of candidates on a very large list on which the electorate will be able to make their choice. Conversely, by compelling the smaller parties to field 36 candidates instead of 18, one is limiting that party in its appeal to the widest possible spectrum of electors.
There may, for example, be only 200 or 500 voters in a constituency that wished to cast their votes for the United Kingdom Unionist party—Robert McCartney. Provided that my party is willing to field at least one candidate in that constituency, is there any reason why those 200,300 or more people should be denied an opportunity to vote for it?
If the object of the legislation is to include as many of the smaller parties as possible—not just my party—insistence on two candidates from each party in each constituency is simply the erection of an unnecessary hurdle for the smaller parties to overcome. Such a hurdle, by its very nature, defeats the object of giving the smaller parties the widest possible opportunity to participate.
I exhort the Committee to support the amendment.

Mr. William Ross: I tabled a short amendment which goes in a direction completely opposite to that of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) because I wish to remove the limit of five candidates.
This is a party list system—a list of parties and not of individuals. I think that the more candidates a party has running in every part of a constituency, the greater its chance of enhancing its vote. It seems a bit ridiculous to say that a party can field five candidates when we know perfectly well that there is not a snowball's chance of any one party winning all five seats in a constituency. Therefore, the limit on the number of candidates has no grounding in logic, and there is no reason why that limit should not be removed or why a party should not field six, seven or 10 candidates in a constituency. Parties would have many people on the streets—knocking doors, talking to the electorate, convincing them of the strengths of their party and persuading them to support their party. All I ask is that that can be done.
We know that some parties, and I think that the SDLP is one—[Interruption.] Its members might like to stop chattering for a moment and listen. I believe that in the constituency of Foyle it has 15 or 16 people currently chasing three or four places. In those circumstances, why should any of them be denied the right to canvass?

Mr. Barnes: Might it not work the other way? Instead of attracting more votes, might not the existence of more than five candidates alienate some voters, thus providing more votes for other parties?

Mr. Ross: I accept that that might happen in view of the divisions between old and new Labour and between the Conservative Euro-sceptics and others, but it could not happen in a united party like the UUP. We would have

no difficulty finding 10 or 15 people who were prepared to work for the party day and night to ensure its success. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Mr. Robert McCartney: In response to what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, it should perhaps be noted that although, theoretically, five candidates may be elected for one party in any constituency—even though that is utterly unlikely—it is abundantly clear that, if six candidates stand, no more than five can be elected. It is absolutely without purpose, therefore, to allow any party to run more candidates than it can conceivably get elected.

Mr. Ancram: I have listened with great care to the representations that have been made. The answer given to the hon. Member for East Londonderry by the hon. and learned Member for North Down was precisely that which I was going to give. Although running more candidates may be a way of securing more canvassers—if I understood the hon. Gentleman rightly—it is not necessarily logical for a party to run more candidates than it can have elected.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Under this system if, for any reason, any of the candidates deemed to be elected drop out—because of death or illness or for some other reason—does not someone have to come up from the bottom? If a party is enthusiastic enough to win five seats, it might be as well for it to have some reserves.

Mr. Ancram: We gave some thought to that when considering how to develop the constituency list system and concluded that that argument could be taken to fanciful lengths. In practical terms, limiting the number of candidates to the number of seats seemed to be the appropriate thing to do.
I understand the concern expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North Down.

Mr. William Ross: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). Let us suppose that one party has three people elected; they go to a meeting in a car that crashes and they are killed. Under the proposed system, that party would lose out, whereas if it had been able to run six, seven or eight candidates, it could simply take people from the original group. That is a valid point.

Mr. Ancram: That situation is provided for in the Bill. We are considering the number of candidates rather than the way in which vacancies are filled.
As I was saying, I understand that the position of the hon. and learned Member for North Down is particular to himself. I heard with interest the fact that he regards an 18-seat campaign as the right way to proceed. Ideally, I would expect to see all parties that wish to be taken seriously stand in a large number of constituencies. That is another reason why we accepted the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, which requires candidature in three constituencies in order to qualify for the regional list.
I repeat what I said earlier. A party is more than one individual, and we believed it was right that there should therefore be a lower limit. Had we not required a


candidature of at least two names on a list, it would have been possible for one person to stand in one constituency and claim to be a party. We felt that that was illogical in terms of the principle of parties and list systems. For that reason we set a minimum limit, which is right in logic and in principle. On that basis, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does not the Minister accept that the principle which he expounds is exploded to some extent by the Government's acceptance of amendment No. 47? Under amendment No. 47, in order to get on to the general list a party has to run a minimum of six people in addition to providing for the general list. Although one person may not be a party, six clearly must be. Even if there were only one candidate for each of the three seats, three plus three may be a small party, but it is certainly a party.
If that principle were to be applied to a greater number of seats—up to 18—amendment No. 143 would provide for at least 18 candidates for election, plus two on the Provincewide list. There would therefore be 20. I have some difficulty in understanding how 20 people do not constitute a party, even though, in an given constituency, there may be only one candidate. After all, in the general elections to elect Members to this Parliament, all the major parties field only one candidate in each constituency, but no one suggests that they cannot really be called parties. I ask the Minister to reconsider my serious suggestion.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument might make sense if it contained a requirement for each party to put up at least one candidate in all 18 constituencies. However, it removes the lower limit without stipulating the number of constituencies in which a party would be required to stand. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the acceptance of amendment No. 47, but that applies only to a party that wishes to take advantage of the regional list system.
We are trying to prevent a situation arising in which a one-man party, which does not envisage taking part in the top-up through the regional list system, stands in one constituency on his own. Such a person would not constitute a party. Earlier, we were talking about the parties on the list which are designated as "Independent". That term is followed by one person's name. Whether those so listed are parties in terms of being able to take part in the election, beyond being shown on the list, depends on whether they can show that they have more than one member. I therefore ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. McCartney: rose—

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to offer to table an amendment to require that parties stand in 18 constituencies, my argument will be fairly predictable: it would place an enormous burden on certain parties which I believe have a right to stand and be heard in this election.

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the Minister for his exposition, but does not his argument boil down to the

fact that a single person can still stand in a constituency—all he needs is one dummy piper by his side? The Minister is in effect saying that two people constitute a party, but a party willing to run a candidate in 18 constituencies cannot do so. Is that the de minimise rule taken to extremes? Do two candidates constitute a party, while one in each of the 18 constituencies does not?
However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 44, page 5, line 10, at end insert—

'Deposits

6(B) (1) A constituency list shall not be validly submitted unless accompanied by a deposit of £2,000.
(2) A regional list shall not be validly submitted unless accompanied by a deposit of £5,000.
(3) If a party submitting a constituency list fails to obtain 5 per cent. of the valid votes cast in that constituency it shall forfeit the deposit lodged in respect of that constituency.
(4) If a party submitting a regional list fails to obtain 2 per cent. of the valid votes cast in Northern Ireland as a whole, it shall forfeit the deposit lodged with its regional list.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 46, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
'6A. A constituency list shall not be validly submitted unless assented to by 100 persons on the electoral register for that constituency.'.
No. 13, page 6, line 19, at end insert—
'(d) he has been convicted of a scheduled offence within the terms of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991'.
No. 16, page 6, line 19, at end insert—
'(d) he has been convicted of any serious terrorist offence prescribed in an Order made under paragraph 1.'
No. 52, page 6, line 19, at end insert—
'(d) he is not entitled to vote in any constituency in Northern Ireland under the provisions of paragraph 4 of this Schedule.'.
No. 73, page 6, line 19, at end insert—
'(d) he is not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland;
(e) he is not on the current electoral register for a Northern Ireland parliamentary constituency.'.

Mr. Trimble: The issue raised by amendment No. 46 was discussed in an earlier debate, owing to its similarity to amendment No. 74, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne. Given the Government's hostility to that amendment, I shall deal now with amendment No. 44.
The Minister said earlier that the Government were prepared to do their utmost to prevent frivolous parties from standing in the elections. I took a longhand note, which may not be entirely accurate, but I think that Hansard will confirm that that is more or less what was said. I agree: we are engaged in a serious business. It is not like a by-election, in which we expect the Monster Raving Loony party and many others to feature, merely in order to advertise themselves.
The point about self-advertisement is worth considering. The parties that are nominated are entitled to free postal facilities, allowing them to deliver a manifesto to each elector or a leaflet to every household. It is called the postal drop. That allows those who wish to advertise certain issues, or even products, an opportunity that people involved in local government by-elections have been prepared to pay for—but under the Government's proposals they would not have to pay. Having found a person who is prepared to stand for them in a particular area, they would be entitled to the postal drop. I consider that undesirable, but, if it is to come about, we should be allowed the safeguard that applies in electoral law generally—the requirement for a deposit. That, we hope, would act as a disincentive, at least to parties with limited resources. In many respects, of course, that applies to my party.
Northern Ireland press reports have suggested that one of the parties that would be standing recently helped itself to £1 million from Securicor. We assume that it is fairly flush as a consequence. We trust that it acquired the money solely for the purpose of electioneering, rather than for the activities in which it was engaged before the ceasefire. We would prefer it to spend its money on electioneering: we do not mind about the unfair advantage conferred on it.

Mr. Jim Dowd: I hope that I have not wrongly assumed what the hon. Gentleman is about to say. He drew attention to the parallel with deposits for parliamentary elections. The return of those deposits depends on a certain degree of performance; I cannot see a parallel with that in amendment No 44.

Mr. McNamara: It is on the other side of the page.

Mr. Trimble: Indeed, if my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) turns the page, he will see the answer to his question.
I may be criticised for pitching the deposit on the high side, but a £5,000 deposit for a regional list that may contain 10 names does not strike me as excessive, given the current £500 tariff for parliamentary elections. It could, I suppose, be argued that that is the equivalent of £500 for each of four candidates on a constituency list, which can in fact contain up to five candidates, but I felt that if we were to provide a disincentive, it should be a serious disincentive.
As for the saving of deposits, I think that we are being entirely fair. We are saying that a party can save its deposit if it obtains 5 per cent. of the vote. That is a pretty low hurdle, and the hurdle for regional lists is even lower, at 2 per cent.

Mr. Barnes: Is it not technically possible for a party to receive less than 2 per cent. of the vote, lose its deposit and still have representatives appointed?

Mr. Trimble: That is one of the ludicrous consequences of having a regional list, which was criticised earlier. If the deposit were forfeited when a party failed to win 2 per cent. of the vote, a significant number of parties would probably be elected, and would

be able to take part in negotiations although they had lost their deposits. At least the loss of their deposits would mark their failure to obtain support, however, and no doubt others would take the opportunity to remind them of that loss.
The point of the amendment is to achieve the objective mentioned earlier by the Minister, and to prevent frivolous parties from standing.

Mr. Barnes: I shall speak to amendment No. 52.
Schedule 1 contains a paragraph entitled "Disqualification". Disqualification is limited to candidates who are offenders in prison, who are detained on the ground of mental illness and who are not of voting age. That is quite restricted, compared with the requirements for parliamentary candidates. I realise that we are not talking about parliamentary elections, but we should discuss the possible equivalent of a parliamentary disqualification. I refer to the nationality restriction—the legal disqualification of those who are often termed aliens. Those who are not British or Commonwealth citizens, or citizens of the Republic of Ireland, cannot stand in parliamentary elections. Should a similar provision operate in Northern Ireland?
We are talking about the establishment of a forum, followed by negotiations. Part of those negotiations—strand 1—will involve the British Government and political parties in Northern Ireland. Should we not restrict electoral candidates to people from Northern Ireland? The obvious list, surely, would be composed of those entitled to vote in the elections, who are referred to in paragraph 4 of the schedule.
We should consider those who belong to the area that is relevant to the decisions being made—people who consider themselves to be part of that community, even if it is a divided community in which different views are held. It would not be right for someone from Great Britain to be drafted in by one of the leaders of the parties that will be standing, including some of the minor parties. It would not be appropriate for people from the Republic of Ireland who do not qualify for inclusion on the electoral register to stand. I do not know whether it is thought reasonable that, if Sinn Fein become involved in negotiations, its representation should be allowed to include perhaps a large number of such people from the Republic of Ireland.
8 pm
As I said earlier, for Parliament, the grounds for legal disqualifications are wider than that, and I am not suggesting that any of those grounds should apply. Disqualifications on peers and peeresses will apply, and ministers of religion from the Church of England, the Church of Ireland and the Roman Catholic Church and those who are bankrupt are disqualified, as are many people who hold public office, such as the chairman of the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland or a member of the Northern Ireland Economic Council.
Obviously, the body that we are debating has specific purposes, and it would not be appropriate to use the list of disqualifications that applies in parliamentary elections. In law, we define those who stand for election by means of disqualification: it is a negative procedure that excludes hosts of people. Perhaps it goes too far and many people should not be excluded. Not even the electoral register is


perfect, because it includes overseas voters who do not seem to be appropriate people to stand in elections. However, it is unlikely that any of them would qualify.
People who are interested in standing for election might be appointed by the leaders of political parties, of which the Bill contains a large list. That must have been considered by the Government when they drafted the legislation. It is hardly an oversight that there is no reference to the electoral register, and I should like to know why it was not included in the legislation. Are the reasons for it to do with the development of negotiations and the forum? Is it felt that anyone can stand as long as the disqualifications in the schedule do not apply to him?

Mr. Wilshire: Amendment No. 73 is in my name, and as it covers much of the ground that has been covered by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), I shall not repeat the arguments. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises how close he might be to a particular truth. He may find some of my speech fascinating. My amendment adds two requirements, one of which is a variation on the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I chose being on the Northern Ireland electoral register as one of the qualifications—I understand the weakness of the parliamentary register—and my other qualification is that a candidate must be ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland.
I had a specific reason for moving the amendment. It is that a rumour has reached me that if I succeed in persuading a certain mainland party to stand in the elections and nominate candidates, punishment might follow. The punishment that I heard suggested was that I might be dispatched to sit on the negotiating panel. As I am the Government's majority of one, it crossed my mind that my absence, except when Northern Ireland business is being discussed, would not be welcome.
I was not sure how to treat the rumour, but I decided that, just in case it had crossed the Government's mind that that would be one way to deal with those of us who go on a bit about the Conservative party fighting these elections, I would move an amendment disqualifying me from being part of the negotiating team, to close the loophole. I can either pursue the amendment or my right hon. and learned Friend can put me out of my misery by saying that it had not crossed his mind that anybody from the mainland should speak for the Conservative party when they take their place on the negotiating team.

Mr. Dowd: I thought that the Government's majority of one had already been claimed by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir J. Critchley). I presume that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is on the reserve list.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) for intervening during his speech. It was my error. The four amendments with which the lead amendment is grouped are at the top of page 500 and I turned two pages at once and missed the remainder of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. He rather gave the game away about the object of the amendments in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I think that the amendment is designed to show the undoubted anomalies and contradictions in the Bill as a whole. We have spent much time picking over those, but I do not think that anybody

has suggested that this is a perfect mechanism. However, we fervently hope that Parliament never needs to return to anything remotely resembling this legislation and that the success of the project on which we are embarked will in due course render that unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 46 would in other circumstances seem reasonable. I accept the point that was made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann that no other election for local or national government is without other types of qualification such as deposits or, in the case of local government, a proposer, seconder and eight assentors. The election that we are discussing would be unique in that people could simply declare themselves as candidates and, on the strength only of their say-so, could appear on the ballot paper. In the context of what we are trying to achieve, we shall just have to live with that.
There is the qualification of the party list. When I wrote my notes for this part of the debate, I thought that, as we had covered party lists, the issue was redundant. However, in view of the previous debate, we have not finished with that issue, but at least we have the essence of a decision about who will be able to declare themselves as candidates.
Another effect of amendments Nos. 44 and 46, certainly in terms of the cash deposit, would be to militate—not deliberately or maliciously—against smaller parties being able to find a place in the deliberations, which we hope will take place productively, after 10 June. The object of the exercise is not simply to identify the juggernauts of politics in Northern Ireland. They are well known, and they are the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party. We are discussing a deliberative assembly that will have no powers and will simply look at the future that can be made for all the people of Northern Ireland. It will assist that process to have present as many representatives of the strands of opinion of Northern Ireland citizens as possible.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East made much of the Natural Law party, but perhaps we shall just have to live with that. However the list of parties is finally resolved, it will contain a cross-section of individuals, groups and communities whose voices are not always heard in the clamour of every-day politics. They would be welcome and, I am sure, valuable to the work that the assembly, the negotiations and the forum have before them. To some degree, we are stuck with the dilemma that, in any legal or technical sense, it is not possible to put to Northern Ireland's people the real question that we would want to ask in relation to parties. That question would be, "Which parties would you want to see getting together to discuss the future of the community and its people?"
That deals with the issue raised by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). He mentioned his preference for wanting to ensure that the voices with whom he does not agree should he there to state the case on behalf of the interests that they represent. It is only by an accommodation with them and between them that progress will be made.
I shall not dwell on amendments Nos. 13 and 16 because the hon. Members who tabled them are not here, but I shall just say that they would hinder rather than help the process, so we would oppose them if they came up.
We have much sympathy with those who tabled amendments Nos. 52 and 73—my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and the hon. Member for Spelthorne—because we feel strongly that the solution, or at least the major part of the solution, to the problems that have beset Northern Ireland in recent times lies in the hands of Northern Ireland's people. It is important to ensure that, as far as possible, it is they and only they who take part, certainly in this phase of what is an intricate and delicate process.
As I mentioned earlier, we must have some regard to what in other times would seem the strange arrangement and legislative formula that is being put before the House, but they are an attempt to break from the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made the significant point that the political process to date has not worked in favour of either the United Kingdom and its citizens or, especially, Northern Ireland's people. We need therefore to try something different and new. Some people are threatened by anything new—it may involve the title of political parties. The fear of the threat of the new is often greater than its implication.
We must be prepared to pursue different alternatives to find a way through this because, if this process does not work, it will not, by any means, be the end of the matter. A deficiency in many of the arguments advanced during the discussion of various provisions in the Bill has been the lack of any idea of what the alternatives are if we do not proceed with this, warts and all. What can we look forward to? What can the people of Northern Ireland, the UK or anywhere else look forward to if we do not make the best effort to make a success of this?
As I said yesterday, we do this not with wild-eyed optimism or starry-eyed ambition, but in the sense that progress must be made by reasonable people acting reasonably. Sometimes it means accepting anomalies and quirks that we would not, in other circumstances, accept, but we firmly believe that the effort is necessary.

Mr. William Ross: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), and I think that I heard him say that he believed that these matters should be left completely in the hands of Northern Ireland's people. May I take it from that that he supports amendment No. 73, tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who is so anxious to serve Her Majesty's Government in the House that he does not want to be drafted off, shanghaied and sent to Northern Ireland? I admire his loyalty to his party, but if the Labour party now says that it supports the thesis of the amendment, that makes me happy.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne must be clearly aware that, if his amendment is not accepted, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his right hon. and hon. Friends, who will be on the Government team, will be in Northern Ireland, yet, if it is accepted, they would be debarred. That would of course be wonderful and truly in keeping with the view expressed by those on the Labour Benches that the matter should all be left completely in the hands of Northern Ireland's people. The amendment would ensure that there would be no interference from interlopers from the Irish Republic. That would also be

welcome. I am most intrigued not only by the amendment, but by the response and support that it has received from Opposition Members.
Northern Ireland's people would be capable of reaching sensible agreements among themselves, if only the nationalist population would learn to stand on its feet and not rely as much as it has on the support of Her Majesty's Government, Dublin, the United States of America and all the rest. We in this party have always been more than willing to stand on our feet and defend our position—we are capable of doing so. If the Social Democratic and Labour party did the same, it could defend its case adequately and we would find ourselves a long way down the road towards agreement among the peoples of Northern Ireland. The amendment is therefore welcome and I hope that the Minister will say that the Government accept it.
The concern about deposits seem a reasonable issue to raise. It has often been debated in the House in the context of deposits for parliamentary elections. No one who is anxious to come to the House ever allowed the tiny deposit that is demanded to stop them. The real difficulty is in the cost of the elections. Such sums will be in a bank. Anyone who is confident and has a real message to put across should easily find the sums demanded, run their candidates and gain sufficient support to get their money back. Therefore, if they have a real message and real support in the community, there is no risk.
I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the amendments standing in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself and in the name of the hon. Member for Spelthorne.

Mr. Barnes: May I point out the differences between amendments Nos. 52 and 73—my amendment and the one in the name of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)? His amendment adds that people on electoral registers will be excluded if they are not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland. That produces a host of administrative problems. We would have to determine who is not ordinarily resident, and could not check just against the register. In the circumstances leading to those formulations, difficulties would arise.
In relation to who votes in the elections, my amendment refers to the same registers as schedule 4, but the hon. Gentleman's refers to parliamentary constituencies: presumably, therefore, parliamentary registers will be considered. There is a difference of about 70 people. For instance, peers and peeresses are allowed to vote in local government elections, but not in parliamentary elections.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank you, Sir Geoffrey, for giving me the opportunity to support my hon. Friends. The hurdle for election to this place and to the Northern Ireland Assembly, when it existed, was the need for a deposit as well as sponsors and supporters. The need for sponsors and supporters has been omitted from the amendment, leaving only the financial aspect to test the credibility of those who want to stand. It may be that, thinking of the reserves that might be needed, the deposit was set at £2,000 instead of, say, £1,500 for each candidate representing a party.
I sympathise with the views of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I was not aware that he was defensive about himself. I thought that he had the courage


to face every issue. He has just made a simple mistake in this case by mentioning the parliamentary register because the Bill is based on the local government register; that has been the case all along.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised an important issue. It is fascinating to realise that there seems to be concern that some folk from mainland parties in Great Britain may come, or some from the Republic of Ireland. It is equally possible that some people from Islington and from Kilburn might be nominated if the amendment were not accepted.

Mr. Barnes: There are not just limitations in connection with the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain when it comes to those who might be excluded by the disqualification. It is wide open. Anyone who is of voting age, does not suffer from mental illness, and is not in prison is eligible to stand, from whichever country they come.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that clarification. It may be that those who drafted the Bill were mesmerised by the Conservative party's recruitment campaign to get voters from overseas. Perhaps the European dimension figured as some European citizens are now able to stand for local government elections in the United Kingdom. That is further argument in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire.

Mr. Ancram: We have had a useful debate on the amendments. The hon. Member for Upper Bann accepted that we have already debated the meat of amendment No. 46, which differs very little from the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne which was dealt with earlier. The only difference is in the figure. I reiterate what I said earlier, which is that in terms of the burden it may create, we do not believe that that is the way to proceed.
I think that we all accept that the purpose of a deposit is to seek to introduce into the electoral process a degree of consciousness on the part of those taking part by testing their resolve to contest the poll. I notice amendment No. 44 in the name of the hon. Member for Upper Bann which deals with that issue.
When considering the case for introducing a deposit, the first point of principle should be the desire to keep the electoral process as open as possible. We considered that matter seriously. We should not seek to hinder those who we believe have a valuable contribution to make in the process. The hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that the levels he has set are too high. I must tell the House that there are a number of parties which have a voice that should be heard and a valuable role to play which are already concerned about the expense of fighting an election. Those parties will have to deal with that in order to show their commitment to the democratic process. Having given a great deal of thought to this issue, I believe that the amendment would only undermine the case for the inclusiveness of the election, which is important.
I am particularly concerned that a regional deposit would not serve any real purpose other than to place further hurdles in the path of those who wish to be part of the election but who do not enjoy the financial muscle of some other parties. It is not our intention to create administrative hurdles which would prevent some parties from putting their case to the wider electorate.
I hope that we have demonstrated in different ways today that we expect parties to approach the process seriously and that it is not our intention to look for frivolous parties. I hope that we have taken on board the meat of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Upper Bann in the amendment that we did accept which relates to the three constituencies. I think that that has been accepted as an indication that we see the spirit of the amendments. However, I feel that the actuality of them would be damaging rather than helpful. I hope that the hon. Member for Upper Bann, through his hon. Friends, will withdraw the amendment.
I will not dwell at length on amendments Nos. 13 and 16 because the hon. Members who tabled them are not present. However, as they are on the amendment paper, it is right to say that, although I understand the purpose behind them, I would be uncomfortable if I were seeking to cast out from the election process those who fall into the criteria in the amendments, but who—we know that there are many such people in Northern Ireland—now live and work in the community and work hard to take forward the peace process and make their contribution felt. It would be wrong if they were excluded.
On the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, I feel that those who are nominated by their representative to stand as a candidate should not have to live in Northern Ireland or be on the electoral register there. I gave a great deal of thought to that. I heard what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said about the Ulster Unionists standing on their own feet. As he knows, I have a great deal of respect for the way in which they stand up for their principles and their causes and fight their corner. However, I remind them that in my early days in the House they had the right hon. Enoch Powell as a valuable member of their team. If I am right, I do not believe that he was born in Northern Ireland and I do not think that he lived there.

Mr. William Ross: That was for this House. We are happy to consider applications for parliamentary seats in Northern Ireland from any part of the United Kingdom. The mere fact that the Minister is sitting for the seat that he is shows how broad a church his party is in this respect.

Mr. Ancram: Absolutely. My point, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept, is that however strong his party may be, it has in the past welcomed people from outside the Province in order to strengthen its arguments. We feel that there may be people from outside the Province who, if nominated, might have a valuable role to play. We feel that it would be wrong for us to proscribe that. Such decisions should be made by the nominating representatives. I would be uneasy at limiting their ability to choose by imposing unnecessary restrictions on the qualifying criteria. After all, the criteria are fairly broad in the various electoral systems we have.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) suggested that this was a one-off which might not recur—we hope that it will not recur. However, it is worth looking at other situations. The Act of Settlement 1700 governs the parliamentary candidatures and allows those born in the United Kingdom "and the dominions thereto", Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland to stand for Parliament. Any citizen of a member state of the European Community may stand as a


candidate anywhere within the Community for the European Parliament under the terms of the 1994 European parliamentary elections regulations—that is the short way of referring to them. The 1972 Northern Ireland local government legislation, as amended, also allows citizens of the Republic of Ireland to stand for election to a Northern Ireland council, but they must be either on the register of local electors or owning or renting a property or residing in the district. So, various different rules apply to various different elections.

Mr. Barnes: The different rules apply to different situations. People can stand for elections anywhere in the European Union because the elections concern a European Union of which we are all part. People from Britain can stand as candidates in Northern Ireland for the UK Parliament because the elections relate to the UK Parliament. We are talking about a Northern Ireland forum, and its corner of the discussions is of the most important nature. It would therefore seem reasonable to use the register in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ancram: I appreciate that, but I say again that it would be wrong for us in this House to say to those who will be nominating persons whom they wish to be on their lists and whom they want to take part in the forum and the negotiations that we will set a restriction. I do not believe that it is justified and it does not apply in other types of electoral system.
8.30 pm
We have to be careful. If we exercised the eligibility of total local government candidature, we would make other exclusions, such as bankrupts and people who have been in prison in the past five years. We have to be realistic. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West said that we are trying to create a situation that will provide for a forum and negotiations. In order to do that, we are having to do it in a way that we think will make it most likely to succeed in creating the mandate to allow that process to be taken forward. Having given much serious consideration to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, it is our view that the Bill as it stands is correctly drafted.
I do not know where my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne heard the rumour to which he referred, but we certainly value his contributions to Northern Ireland debates here far too much to allow him to dissipate his efforts by taking part in a process. I can also assure him, since he seemed to think that I had ambitions beyond my present concerns, that I equally—I also speak for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State—have no intention of being nominated as the Conservative to take part in the election.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister told us earlier—it is also in the Bill—that the Government will have three representatives at the negotiations and that they will have a back-up team of five, who could presumably replace one of the three if someone were ill, for example. Will the Minister explain to us so that it is clear in our minds exactly who those three people are, how they will be

selected, who the five are, how they will be selected, what the role of each group will be and how much they are interchangeable?

Mr. Ancram: I do not want to revisit the whole of the debate that we had yesterday, but we made it clear that there was no limit on the size of negotiating teams. There are limits on the numbers who can appear at any given negotiating session, and those were the ones that were set out. There is some misunderstanding because those who are described as "behind", as opposed to "in front", are there to advise. I am told that those who were involved in the last set of talks will recognise the configurations.

Mr. McGrady: indicated assent.

Mr. Ancram: I see the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) nodding.

Mr. Ross: I was not.

Mr. Ancram: I know that the hon. Gentleman was not, but I am saying to him that the idea of having advisers and those whose support one needs behind one is not new. It is merely a reiteration because many of us feel—perhaps unwisely—that we need the support of others behind us when we are negotiating.
I have thought very carefully about whether we should have limited those who could be put on the lists. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will agree that, if we are to enter the process with the best hands that the parties can put forward in their negotiators, it is better that those decisions are left to them. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Wilshire: When I spoke to my amendment, I raised the personal points that I did because I did not want to repeat those made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). As a result of the debate that has ensued, however, I should add that I agree with all the points that he made. They are far more serious than those I made about myself.
In response to my points, I am reassured by the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not know whether he will relish the result of saying that he values my contributions to these debates because it might encourage me to detain the House even longer than I have over the past two days.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Minister failed to persuade me of a case for resisting the amendments because all the examples used about why they would not be sensible were all examples of why the established precedent is for some form of restriction. He cited the European Parliament. If one is resident in Peru or on the Peruvian electoral register, one cannot compete in European Parliament elections, but one can if one lives in the European Community.
In Northern Ireland local government, the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) rightly said that one could participate if one lived in the Republic, but went on to slip in that one had either to live in Northern Ireland or work there, which is exactly the sort of restriction for which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire and I have been arguing. If one considers any other electoral process in the UK, such as parish, district, county, or as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said,


parliamentary elections, there is a restriction on where one lives or works too. I do not therefore believe that the case has been made for rejecting the amendments.
I can however offer one very good reason why I am inclined not to press my amendments. It is not for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Minister has given, but the fact that if I force a Division I know that I shall lose and the punishment of being sent to Northern Ireland would become ever more real.

Mr. Barnes: The political positions on Northern Ireland issues that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and I take differ considerably in many ways. It is therefore significant that we are arguing a similar case.

Mr. Wilshire: To clarify matters, I would be perfectly happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman's amendment rather than mine. It is a matter of drafting. I hope that he will accept that I feel not in the least bit strongly that my amendment is better than his.

Mr. Barnes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. We are both involved in the affairs of the British-Irish parliamentary body. I would press the Unionists very strongly to involve themselves in it too. My arguments do not come from a Unionist camp. I am concerned about other things. The importance of taking Northern Ireland as a unit and involving the people of Northern Ireland in decision making is of paramount importance. Many candidates from outside Northern Ireland, who are appointed by the leaders of the parties, are liable to stand in the election.
A number of parties in the list in schedule 1 operate on an all-Ireland basis. The Democratic Left operates in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland, as do the Green party, Sinn Fein, the Workers' party and the Communist party of Ireland. There are also often quite close links, or considerable sympathy, about a united Ireland between Fianna Fail and the SDLP. Of course, Sinn Fein operates on an all-Ireland basis. It is important that we consider how to determine who is a part of the political unit that we are discussing, and should therefore be involved and drawn in? That is what my amendment seeks to do.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I shall respond again to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, because he appealed to us as Unionists to join the British-Irish parliamentary tier. As I understand it, the Bill is designed to prepare the way towards a better agreement than the Anglo-Irish agreement. We went down that road in 1992, and Mr. Albert Reynolds lifted the ball when he discovered that things were not going his way. That process has collapsed, and we are now embarked on a course which may lead us to a better agreement. In that situation I am sure that Unionism will be represented, where we need to represent Ulster.
Having said that, I ask leave to withdraw the amendments in the names of my colleagues, amendments Nos. 44 and 46, but I believe—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The only Member who can seek leave to withdraw an amendment is the person who moved it in the first place—and technically, although the

other amendments grouped with the main amendment may be debated, they have not been moved; they may be moved only one at a time.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that guidance, Dame Janet. I was responding to a request from the Minister of State, because our leaders are having discussions at this moment, so they are not in the Chamber.
The arguments of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire are pertinent. Two Governments will be represented in the negotiations, so it is important that the other people there represent the people of Northern Ireland, and do not come from any other part of the world.

Amendment negatived.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Before we move on, I have a short announcement to make to the Committee. A manuscript amendment has been tabled in the name of the Secretary of State, relating to schedule 2, page 8, line 3. I have selected that amendment, and it will be discussed with the group led by amendment No. 64. Copies of the manuscript amendment are available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Dame Janet. It might help the Committee to know that the manuscript amendment relates to an amendment of mine. I was asked about it, and I think that it makes a great deal of sense.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 5, line 12, leave out from 'cast' to end of line 2 on page 6 and insert
'preferentially among the candidates named on the party list on the ballot paper for each constituency.
(2) Counting shall be conducted by the single transferable vote system to produce five delegates for each constituency.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 43, in page 5, line 15, at end insert
'and that party's candidates for that constituency.'
No. 158, in page 5, line 15, at end insert
'together with the names of the candidates submitted by the nominating representative of the party for that constituency'.

Mr. Kirkwood: As someone with no great experience in such matters, it has been fascinating for me, and an education, to sit in on the Committee stage of this important Bill. In preparation, a few colleagues and I were afforded the opportunity by the Minister to go and talk to some of his officials and some representatives of the political parties both in the Province and in the Republic.
I pay tribute to the Minister for having allowed us that facility—although I know that other hon. Members have been able to take advantage of such a facility as part of the familiarisation programme. I found it extremely interesting. We were received with great hospitality, and learned a lot in the process. I pay tribute to those who assisted in that process, and thank the Minister for arranging it.
8.45 pm
I bring an unfamiliar face, but a fresh mind, to such subjects. In the course of our visit, in anticipation of moving the amendment and while researching the


background to it, I was struck by the optimism in all parts of the community about the progress that has been made recently. To me there seemed to be momentum for change. Certainly there has already been a great deal of economic and social change, which I think will pay dividends in the fulness of time, and feed through into the political process. It is to be hoped that that will assuage some of the fears that we have heard about in Committee.
I now come to the context of amendment No. 51. It should come as a surprise to no one that, given an electoral system to discuss, a Liberal Democrat will leap forward and grab the opportunity to debate the relative merits of single transferable votes and multi-member constituencies.
I shall spare the Committee the finer points of the authorised version of that text, because I am sure that everyone is already familiar with them. However, I must ask why the Government did not adopt the system of proportional representation—STVs and multi-member seats. There seem to be several compelling reasons for doing so in the present context.
The structure that the Government propose is certainly not simple. I understand why it may have to be that way, and I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister has painstakingly, and with great patience, put the thing together. It is a bit of a Heath Robinson apparatus, but the Minister, like the rest of us, hopes that it will bear fruit. We wish him well, and hope that it produces results in the end.
None the less, the suggested electoral system seems bizarre and complicated to me. If I have interpreted what I have heard in Committee correctly, it also seems to have the disadvantage of being quite unpopular. I certainly have not heard anybody passionately endorsing it.
Judging by our visit last week, there is much evidence to suggest that not everybody fully understands the system either—and that includes some of the Government officials and some of the people who will preside over it. Confusion still surrounds it. More important, perhaps, is the disturbing evidence that the voters who will be involved in the process cannot easily see how their votes will translate into elected parties and representatives. That is a matter for concern.
In Northern Ireland, the single transferable vote system is far more familiar. I do not need to tell the Minister that, because in a short space of time he has made himself an expert on all aspects of life in the Province, especially the political aspects. That is what he is paid to do, and he has discharged his duties impeccably.
So far as I remember, the most recent Assembly elections in 1982 were successfully conducted by a process of single transferable votes. The same system is used in council elections and European elections—in all elections, in fact, except the Westminster elections. The arguments that may be used against a proportional STV system on the mainland do not apply in the Province, because people are familiar with the system and educated in its use. They have used it to good effect in the past.
Such a system would certainly be simpler. It would cut out clauses 8 to 13 at a stroke, which would be an advantage in a Bill that is already more complicated than some of us would like. Above all, perhaps, an STV system

would give voters much more effective choice. Instead of voting for one party alone, they could effectively vote against a party, by ranking everyone else higher. They could also vote against the community divide, which is something we should try to encourage.
Moreover, voters would more easily be able to vote for doves as opposed to hawks in terms of particular problems and cross-community questions in the Province. Above all else, an STV system would be proportional. The Government's proposed system may tend towards proportionality, but only just. There is still scope for wide variations—but perhaps that is what the Minister wants to encourage.
From our perspective as a party, the onus is on the Government to explain why STV has not been selected as the preferred system for electing this important forum. STV in a multi-member constituency is the only way to achieve a system in which every vote would count the same. I look forward to the Minister's response to this short but important debate.

Mr. Trimble: I rise to support amendment No. 51 and to speak to my amendment No. 43, which is on similar lines to amendment No. 158, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry.
In supporting amendment No. 51 in favour of the single transferable vote system, I find myself behaving in a way of which I do not entirely approve. STV is not the best system of proportional representation, because it has serious side effects. Had we the time to consider the matter and the opportunity to choose the best system, we would not choose STV.
However, we are familiar with it. In Northern Ireland, we have lived with STV since 1973. Although there was considerable concern about the effect that it might have on parties when it was introduced, the political parties and the electorate have learned to live with it and operate it in a sophisticated manner. While some of its effects are injurious to political parties, it is the system with which we are familiar. All the existing arrangements are made for it. The legislation is already on the statute book. No change would need to be made to existing law to operate the STV system.
STV is a fair system. No system of proportional representation achieves absolute proportionality. There are bound to be some quirks that depart from that no matter what the system. However, STV gets close to proportionality. There can be no objection to it on grounds of fairness. I believe that the Electoral Reform Society, which is based in London, has long been an enthusiastic advocate for it.
Given the situation that is going to arise in Northern Ireland, there is a particular reason for adopting STV, in that it allows transfers of votes. The list system that we will be obliged to operate has obvious disadvantages. We have just witnessed a clear demonstration of those disadvantages in the Chamber tonight. We saw the disagreement that broke out in the Committee and the ill will and confusion that it created among hon. Members familiar with proportional systems.
That is partly the result of choosing the list system, and partly of the haste with which the list has been introduced. It may also partly be the result of carelessness and inconsistentcy, especially the latter, by the Northern Ireland Office.
Even if we get over those problems with the manner in which the list system has been introduced for this election in Northern Ireland, it has another significant disadvantage. Under the list system, there is no transfer of votes. That is all very well where a party's support approximates to or equals the number of quotas. However, if it has more than a particular number of quotas, it will have a fraction of a quota over. There may be several parties with fractions of a quota over.
In Northern Ireland, with the list system operating on a constituency basis with five seats to be filled, it is likely that the fourth and fifth seats will be filled by choosing the largest fractions as determined by the D'Hondt method, which is embodied in the legislation. The largest fractions will win seats, but the fractions of smaller parties will be wasted votes.
Had we operated a transferable vote system, those fractions would transfer. They would be transferred not under an arbitrary mathematical formula such as the D'Hondt formula, but in accordance with the wishes of the voter. That will have a significant effect. We do not how the votes will be cast, and any illustration of its effect must be made using previous voting patterns that may not be replicated on 30 May.
Let us consider the likely voting pattern in Belfast, West, which is a constituency with a nationalist majority. Under the STV system, it is likely that four of the seats would be won by Sinn Fein and the SDLP—perhaps two each: I am not going to make a judgment on that—but that the fifth seat would be won by a Unionist.
It is likely, come 30 May, that there will be candidates from the Ulster Unionist party, the DUP, the Progressive Unionist party and perhaps even the Ulster Democratic party. There will be an Alliance party candidate, and perhaps even a United Kingdom Unionist party candidate. If we had had STV, all those parties would probably between them have commanded more votes than a quota under the STV system. Transferred votes would have accumulated around one of those parties, which would then have won a seat.
The party that won the seat would be the party that voters who had given their first preference to, say, the PUP, gave as their second preference. Someone would be returned to represent the Unionists of Belfast, West. The likelihood on 30 May is that, because of the way in which the list system operates, those fractions, as they are divided among so many parties, will be small and consequently will fail to win a seat. The fifth seat will go to the largest nationalist party, which will probably be Sinn Fein in this case. The consequence of adopting the list system in Belfast, West is likely to be that there will be a seat lost to Unionism and gained by Sinn Fein.
I chose that example because it shows how the list system disadvantages parties that achieve small votes in a particular constituency. That has a bearing on the position of the small parties, especially the loyalist parties, because in that example of Belfast, West, there is a good chance that that Unionist vote would have coalesced around the PUP, thus giving it a seat. Because the list system has been adopted, it is likely that it will not get one.
We are then forced into the monstrosity of the regional list proposals, which are being introduced purely to bring the paramilitary parties through. Had the STV system—with which we are all familiar—been adopted, the situation would not have arisen. It is not only a matter of

familiarity with the STV system, and the ease and convenience of it being already on the statute book, but that it would have been fairer to the smaller parties had it been adopted.

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend has dealt with the fairly extreme case of west Belfast. One or two other constituencies on either side of the political divide might well produce a similar result. Would my hon. Friend care to reflect for a moment on constituencies in which four seats might be won by various groupings, but the fifth becomes a lottery and there is no possibility of anyone determining to which party it should go? I think that most constituencies in Northern Ireland are in that position.

Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend is right: there will be great difficulty in saying where the final seat should go. Under the single transferable vote system, it would be determined by the voters transferring their votes, whereas, under the proposed system, it will depend on a mathematical formula.

Mr. Ross: It would be completely arbitrary.

9 pm

Mr. Trimble: It would not be entirely arbitrary, because the result would relate to the original first preferences cast by the electorate.
The results are difficult to predict at this stage. The predictions I made for the example I chose may well turn out to be accurate, but in other cases it is extremely difficult to predict. I imagine that, after the event, the election will be a field day for academics who like to write on the subject. They will analyse the results and debate whether they were capricious in any particular case.
For the reasons that I have advanced—having the legislation on the statute book, familiarity of operation and fairness to the smaller parties, it seems to me that, on the merits, there is an overwhelming case in favour of the single transferable vote system. It also seems to me, and I do not resile from the view that I have expressed previously—I think that it is accurate—that there are no merits behind the alternative proposal that has been adopted. That proposal seems to have come from a certain quarter as a wrecking amendment adapted by others for other reasons. It has produced the confusion and uncertainty that we have seen here tonight.
In the circumstances that have arisen, we are prepared to support the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on amendment No. 51 should he feel like pressing it.
We have tabled amendment No. 43, to which we attach considerable importance. While we have a list system, it is said to be one based on constituencies. In those constituencies, candidates will be standing for the parties that are contesting those seats. Under any normal system, those candidates are entitled to be recognised and to have their name on the ballot paper. Some of them may win and some may not, but they are all entitled to be recognised.
We normally operate under a system in which the names of the candidates in a constituency are on the ballot paper so that the voters in the booth can make their choice knowing whom they are electing. It is essential that we operate on that basis. I attach the greatest importance to seeing the names of the candidates on the ballot paper.
We had a discussion earlier about what should appear on the ballot paper—names, party names and the rest of it. Our position throughout has been that we want to see the names of our candidates who are standing in a constituency on the ballot paper, together with the party name. People object to that, saying that it will result in too many names; that there might be up to five names for each party and a considerable number of parties, and that there would be scores of names on the ballot paper. Yes, indeed. I do not see that as a problem.
We are not dealing with the prospect of 60 names on a list each with their own little box for people to mark their X or put 1, 2 or 3 under the single transferable vote system. At the edge of the ballot paper, there will be only one box for each party. We think that it is perfectly possible to put on the ballot paper the name of the party and below that the names of the candidates, all contained in the one box for that party. There is no reason why that cannot be done.
The Minister will recall a Labour Member referring on Second Reading to a recent election that he had seen in Palestine, in which there were 92 names on the ballot paper. So it can be done. It will not cause confusion. Rather than causing confusion, it will help the situation by letting the voter know for whom he is voting.
We know from discussions with the Minister that he will say that names will be publicised and notices will be put up to show the names; that there will be notices in the polling station or even in the booth. It has been suggested that the notice in the booth will be covered by perspex to stop people annotating it. I suppose that, if the information is to be in the booth, it jolly well ought to have perspex over it. I can imagine some of the ways in which people might annotate it that might add to the enjoyment of life for some people, but perhaps not for others.
However, this is not a sensible way of proceeding—a sensible way of proceeding is to make this novel provision correspond as closely as possible with what people are accustomed to. The obvious thing to do is to put the names of the candidates and the parties on the ballot paper. That is what people are accustomed to seeing, and when they vote for the party of their choice, they will know exactly which candidates they are endeavouring to elect. This is something to which we attach the utmost significance, and it is what we have wanted to see with regard to this issue right from the outset.

Mr. McNamara: I refer to the actual voting system. I have considerable sympathy with what the Liberals have said—

Mr. Maginnis: And the Ulster Unionists.

Mr. McNamara: If I may be allowed to make my own speech—I was going to say what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said. I am concerned about the actual formula that is going to be adopted, because I do not understand it enough. Will the Minister confirm that the d'Hondt formula is being used in the Bill?

Mr. Ancram: indicated assent.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister nods; I am pleased that is so.
For the convenience of hon. Members, will the Minister prepare some worked examples of mythical constituencies and how the formula might work, so that we can look at it in more detail? Perhaps he could arrange for it to be placed in the Library. We could then see how matters have been arrived at by the Northern Ireland Office.
There is one difficulty with d'Hondt. If we had a remainder system on quotas, it would help some of the smaller parties—perhaps the Alliance party, perhaps Sinn Fein, or perhaps the UK Unionist party—Robert McCartney, to give its full title. The d'Hondt system will tend to favour the larger parties, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has said. I am not sure whether the Government, by adopting this system, have defeated the object of their exercise in having the extra 20 seats.
If we had a remainder system, we would have a greater representation of some of the more middling parties, but we might not get some of the more extremist loyalist parties that the Minister is looking for on his list of 20. I should be grateful if we could have some worked examples to try to see how it will work out in the election when it takes place.
I have already spoken on some of the issues involved in amendment No. 43, which the hon. Member for Upper Bann moved earlier. I should be grateful if the Minister could describe what he is going to do, because it will be of the utmost importance. Even if one accepted the amendment, there would still be a need for large postering within polling stations—in a readable form—so that people can see the names of the candidates for whom they are voting, and see them in relation to the parties.

Mr. Maginnis: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on amendment No. 43. I spoke about this matter at some length on Second Reading. It concerns me—and more than it did previously. I listened to the debate that took place earlier this afternoon, and I was puzzled by the clamour in some quarters for a list system based on party names—it is now being discovered that there is some advantage in being able to identify the personalities for whom one is voting. However, democracy is not about single high-profile individuals or comparatively small parties with one high-profile character, but about the participation of members of society elected, by that society, and answerable to it in terms of their responsibilities.
As we appear to be tied to party names, and major difficulties appear to have arisen from that novel—and obviously flawed—system, I would press the Minister to listen carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann said about identifying on the ground in the 18 various constituencies those who represent the party named on the ballot paper.
One other matter might usefully be considered in this context. The Minister should clarify—I asked him to do so on Second Reading, and he overlooked the matter—the basis on which votes for the various parties will be evaluated in terms of the quota, and whether "T" in paragraph 8(2) is the total number of votes given or the total number of valid votes cast.
I hope that I have not strayed too far, Dame Janet. I hope that the Minister will find some justification for responding to that point also.

Mr. William Ross: Dame Janet, you will see that, not


only was I one of those who tabled amendment No. 43, but I tabled amendment No. 158, which is intended to reach the same conclusion. That juxtaposition of two amendments aiming at the same object arises simply and purely from the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and I did not do the drafting together, so we chose different wording to reach the same object.
If I may say so, I believe that my amendment is a slight improvement on my hon. Friend's amendment, because I place the responsibility for getting the names correct on my hon. Friend, and I believe that he should be prepared to withdraw his amendment and support mine, and accept the responsibility that goes with leadership of the party.
In those circumstances, I commend my amendment to the Committee, and carry us somewhat further than my hon. Friend did when he drew attention to the need for the names of the candidates to appear on the ballot paper. He suggested one way of doing so; another would be to have a box for the names of candidates at the end, but I believe that it would be better to place the name underneath the party name.
I point out to the Secretary of State and Minister of State that, in normal parliamentary ballots, a description of the person is printed on the ballot paper, and I should have thought that it was a very good idea. The electorate like to know the identity of individuals for whom they may vote. It guides them, and helps them to place their cross. In those circumstances, this reasonable amendment should be accepted.
I am one of those who do not love proportional representation in any shape or form, believing that it is, in effect, a fudge to avoid the necessity of making up one's mind what one really wants. Proportional representation causes considerable grief in every country where the system is used. It is destructive to party political organisation in a number of ways and, above all, it is not accepted throughout the United Kingdom. I simply do not like it and I shall never accept it willingly—although I am stuck with it at the moment. In those circumstances, I must choose between single transferable votes and the list system—and STVs win hands down every time. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann described that system fairly clearly: it is more proportional and it produces acceptable results as it is closer to the will of the people than the monstrous system that is being foisted upon us in the legislation.
9.15 pm
My only objection to the amendment standing in the names of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), is that it does not go far enough. I believe that several other issues must be examined also. People will cast a vote for a party in the constituency to elect the party nominees in that constituency, and those votes will then be lumped together.
Although people may vote for a candidate from a minor party in the constituency, it does not mean that they want their votes to carry over to that minor party on the wider canvas. People might be prepared to support local individuals, but not the general thrust of their parties. Electors should cast another vote for the party that is shown on the constituency list. That would entail using two ballot papers, but that has been done before.
Will the Minister examine that aspect? It is a reasonable request and, as we are making an effort to educate the electorate, why not do a really good job of it? As the Minister knows, after every election there is a tremendous torrent of complaints from people who were refused ballot papers because they could not produce any identification. The Government and the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland have assiduously refused to take any steps to discover the number of people who lose out as a result.
The passage of new legislation presents a superb opportunity to correct that difficulty. Presiding officers at each polling station should be required to keep a record of the number of people who are refused ballot papers and the reasons for that refusal. That would go a long way towards identifying the magnitude of the problem.
Those who live in Northern Ireland recognise that it is an enormous problem, which is causing immense resentment and anger among the electorate. It should be addressed, and here is an opportunity to do that. The legislation will apply to only one election, but it will give us an idea of the magnitude of the difficulty that people encounter and enable the Government to take remedial action in the long term.
I urge the Minister to look at the suggestion very carefully. If one of my starred amendments had been selected, we could have discussed arid voted upon the issue in this place—but that was not to be. I simply suggest that the problem be considered seriously on Report or in another place. The Minister is aware that there is an horrendous row every time, as it becomes more and more difficult to identify electors with every passing election. That burden is borne by electors in Northern Ireland, but it does not apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is very much resented, although the system was introduced for good reasons. We have never been happy, and I do not believe that any party in Northern Ireland has ever been happy with the system that has been used to identify electors, because it is inefficient. It is also difficult for the honest to use and very easy for those with evil intentions to get round.
I hope that the Government will not only accept amendment No. 51, but will build on it before the Bill returns to this place for its final parliamentary stage. I hope that the Minister will also accept amendment No. 43. If he can, but cannot accept amendment No. 158, I would be content with that.

Mr. Ancram: Once again, we have had a useful debate and, as in so many of the debates, we agree about what we are trying to achieve although we may not always agree about how to achieve it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for the kind remarks that he made about the visit that he made to the Province recently. I know that many people in Northern Ireland, not least in the departments in the Northern Ireland Office, like to see visitors from this side of the water. Many people come to Northern Ireland and leave surprised at what they have seen there. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and, if I may, I shall pass on his thanks to those who were involved in the visit.
The hon. Gentleman showed remarkable restraint in giving us only the short version of STV, not the long one. I am sure that he appreciates that the circumstances are


unique. I keep repeating that the system is a one-off system for a one-off purpose. For that reason, we have to find a system that we believe will have the best chance of succeeding.
We sought, in consultations with the parties, to find a broadly acceptable electoral process to try to reach agreement for all-party negotiations. We met most of the major and, indeed, most of the minor parties in Northern Ireland. While there were some encouraging signs of agreement, the elective system was not among them. We are trying to move forward on the basis of consensus, but it is difficult to do so when, as in Northern Ireland, there are strongly polarised and opposed views on various systems.
We had a variety of options for an electoral system, but none secured the clear support of the major parties representing main communities. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself said that there were three systems, each of which was supported by one of the major parties, but that it was impossible to find consensus among those parties on any one system. We chose, therefore, a list system operating in 18 constituencies. I admit that that was a new way to proceed, but it was an attempt to find some way that would allow parties that felt strongly on both sides of the argument to come forward into the process. The system is neither a pure list system nor a PR-STV election, but we hoped that in some ways it would combine elements of both.
I say straightforwardly that the fact that we have not proposed using a straight PR-STV 18-constituency system should not be regarded as a reflection on that system and the way in which it operates in Northern Ireland. I heard what the hon. Member for Upper Bann had to say about that system, but it is used in Northern Ireland for all elections except parliamentary elections. That speaks for itself. I can tell the hon. Member that we chose not to use that system, not because we had found fault with that system as it works in Northern Ireland, but to try to produce a system that had the best prospect of bringing parties into a forum and into negotiations.

Mr. Trimble: As the Minister says, the single transferable vote system is currently used in Northern Ireland for all elections other than parliamentary elections. Does he have any evidence that the single transferable vote system is unacceptable to the parties in Northern Ireland in respect of these elections?

Mr. Ancram: We consulted the parties on the form of election that would have the best chance of succeeding in taking us through the gateway to the process on which we are embarking. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows well that strong opinions and views were expressed. I do not think that it is any secret that there are strong views among the parties in Northern Ireland, some of which we heard earlier this evening. This was a genuine attempt by the Government to seek a system which might be new and

which might be fairly unusual, but which we believed had the best chance of achieving the objective, which is to get into the forum and all-party negotiations.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister says that there were strong objections to the single transferable vote system, but were those objections ever voiced before?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will have to accept it from me. He came to see me about the matter as well. We had full consultations, and I can say only that I experienced strong feelings from several quarters during those consultations. It was made clear to me that consensus on those various forms of election was not possible. It is for that reason that we have adopted a different system. However, I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say and we are grateful that he has intervened on behalf of his party in the debate and for what he had to say.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister please tell us who among the parties in Northern Ireland was in favour of this system?

Mr. Ancram: I chose my words carefully and said that we went for a system which we believed, in the light of all the consultations, had the best chance of succeeding in taking parties through into all-party negotiations and into the forum. I shall not be drawn by a comment made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who asked whether it was because we had something which was unpopular with everyone that it was likely to succeed. However, there were times during the consultations when opinions were so polarised between the various systems that it became clear to us that not a single one of those systems would have a chance of succeeding, and for that reason we have put forward our proposal.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) did not want me to go into the detail of the system. When he asked about it, I nodded assent that it is based on d'Hondt. The basis is a group quota, so it may be regarded as a mixture of the two.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) asked whether the number of votes is the total number of votes cast or votes given. I refer him to the Bill, which makes it clear that it is the total number of votes given rather than those cast.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point, but I am astounded at his reply. We have found so many matters incorporated in the Bill which, when examined in the context of the Bill as a whole, seem to be absolute nonsense. Now the Minister says that if 10 per cent. of the electorate go into the voting station and destroy their ballot papers, their votes will count in terms of deciding a quota. The vote does not show a preference, but it is a vote given. It is a vote put in the ballot box, and it will count in terms of deciding a quota.
I have never before heard of a system whereby spoiled votes were taken into consideration when deciding the value of votes given. It has always been a matter of deciding on the basis of valid votes—whether it be under the first-past-the-post system or under the single


transferable vote system. I am astonished to the extent that I believe that the Minister should check again, to see whether it is a matter of deciding on the basis of valid votes cast.

Mr. Ancram: I wanted to confirm the position, and I have now been informed that spoiled votes will not count as votes given.

Mr. Canavan: The Minister said that in the first place.

Mr. Ancram: I think that I made that matter clear, but I have now confirmed the position. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for again raising the issue so that it could be clarified.

Mr. Maginnis: I am always happy to try to help out the Minister.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for offering his assistance from a seated position. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will be grateful for the information that they have now received.
I tell the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that I shall not be drawn into making predictions. It is notoriously difficult to make predictions on how votes will be cast—particularly in a situation in which there have recently been different elections and different types of elections, and different assessments could be made on the basis of the different types of votes cast. I hope that he will accept that there was consultation before deciding on the system of voting that was finally adopted.
In reply to the hon. Member for East Londonderry, I very much share his concern about voter information. I can tell him that we shall this week receive the first delivery of our voter information leaflet about absentee voting and specified documents. The leaflet will tell people what they need to ensure that they have an up-to-date document when they go to the polling station to cast their votes. I heard what he had to say about checking the number of occasions on which people are turned away for not having the right identification, and I shall certainly pass on his comments to those who will be running this election.

Mr. William Ross: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, but do not let them be put off by the chief electoral officer saying, "Those people may very well go away and come back again." We want to know the number of people turned away initially, because that will give us an idea of the magnitude of the problem. We appreciate that some people may go home and come back, but our experience is that many of them go home in fury and do not come back.

Mr. Ancram: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the chief electoral officer is aware of the remarks that he has made in this debate.
I come to amendment No. 43, spoken to by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. As he said, he and I have talked about the matter on a number of occasions, and I think that he will accept that I am as concerned as he is to see that people who are casting their votes are aware of the candidates who are on the local list. Although the vote

will be for a party—which will be cast by putting a cross against the name of a single party; there is no question of candidate preferences—it obviously will be of some importance that voters know which candidates are on the local party list.
I must again tell the hon. Member for Upper Bann that I am not convinced that putting those names on the ballot paper is the answer. I have examined the potential numbers that might result from that provision, and not 90 names but, theoretically, up to 150 names could result from it. We are also talking about a new type of election, whereas people may previously have been used to seeing names and putting preferential numbers against those. It is important that, when voters see their ballot paper, their choice is simple and straightforward—a vote for a party.

Mr. Trimble: rose—

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has again read my mind. So that those who are casting their votes know the names of candidates on the party lists before casting their vote, we shall ensure that the names are fully displayed not only in the polling station but in the polling booths. It may be, as the hon. Gentleman said, that lamination is a way in which to prevent the lists being destroyed.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister said that he has examined the problem. He knows from our earlier discussions that I asked him to make up mock ballot papers with the names on, and that I suggested ways in which the names could appear, which would not require a large amount of space. Has that been done? If so, is the Minister prepared to circulate the mock ballot papers so that we can comment on them?

Mr. Ancram: I have examined various shapes of ballot papers as well as the effect that the number of parties and names on them might have. I cite an example. A normal polling booth has a shelf in it or an area in which people fill in the ballot paper. We have to be careful that we do not produce a ballot paper that is unmanageable in terms of what the voter has to lean on when making his cross.
The biggest consideration is to ensure that, although we are using what we all admit is a new system, there is as little confusion as possible. If there are vast numbers of names on a ballot paper, inevitably in small print, and people have to find one among them, it can lead only to confusion.

Mr. Trimble: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but we agree that what is important is that when the voter casts his vote, he is able to see the names on each party list so that he can make his decision on that basis if necessary. That will be made possible by having the lists within the polling booths and ensuring that they are visible to people casting their vote.

Mr. Maginnis: With respect, the Minister is being wholly illogical. To suggest that we cannot educate the electorate on the difference between marking 1, 2, 3 and so on and voting with an X, but that we can, at the last minute, just before they cast their vote in the booth, confront them with, as he says, a list of 30 parties and


the attached theoretical five names per party—making 150 names—and that that is how we should inform them, is utter rubbish. If we knew that the ballot paper was going to be published, with the names of the parties and the two, three, four or five candidates, our supporters could undertake some preparation. Every party would be involved in the same exercise. We could thus prepare the electorate for what they were about to face. By suggesting that he confront them in the booth with 150 names, and the 30 parties that he mentions, the Minister is making fools of us all.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. I am not suggesting that when the votes are cast is to be the first time that the names will have been made available. I think that it is common ground between the hon. Member for Upper Bann and me that when votes are cast, it is proper that those names are available to the voter. That is why he wants them on the ballot paper and why I want them in the polling booth. However, they will be published elsewhere. I suspect that they will be published in the newspapers, and they could be published officially in the polling station. There are various ways in which the information could be got to the voter beforehand. We are not talking about that. We are debating the most effective way to avoid unnecessary confusion and the danger of spoilt ballot papers about which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone was speaking as if he is already expecting many. We want to avoid such problems by making the choice as simple as possible.
The strength of the system that we are proposing is that, for the voter, it requires only one cross to be put against one party. We must make sure that the voter understands that when he goes into the polling booth and is faced with the ballot paper. I think that what we are proposing is the best way to achieve that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely it is the duty of the parties to be putting their names to the people. If the poor critter going to vote is seeing the names for the first time, it is the parties' fault. They should have been campaigning and putting the names before the people. Can the Minister assure us that the information will be in party form so that, unlike with the list that he mentions, voters will understand what names belong to which party when they see the advertisements in the polling booths?

Mr. Ancram: The information in the polling booth will certainly show the names attached to the party lists. It is important that that is made absolutely clear. It is also our intention to make sure that the names will be entered by a given date, which will be set out in the order that will follow this legislation. At that stage, I am certain that most political parties will take advantage of the opportunity to ensure that their supporters know the names on the local lists

Mr. Maginnis: I did not understand the last intervention, and I wonder whether the Minister did. A short time ago, it was argued that voters would find it difficult to identify parties, even if their initials were attached, unless the names of the leaders of those parties were on the ballot paper. It is now being argued that, because we as parties fulfil our responsibilities, the

ordinary voter should be able to carry a complicated ballot paper in his mind's eye from the moment of education until his arrival in the polling booth—or should be easily able to transfer what is before him in the booth on to the ballot paper. There is no consistency in that.
May I make a further point? Will a legislative change be needed to allow the names of candidates to appear in the polling booth? In elections in which I have been involved, voters were not allowed to receive such information.

Mr. Ancram: I understand that no legislation is required, but I shall check that.
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that information is normally provided in the polling booth: the information on the ballot paper, which allows a choice. The hon. Member for Upper Bann and I differ only on whether that information should be on the ballot paper, or should be available in the polling booth. I strongly believe—given the need to avoid confusion, and the possibility that up to 150 names could be on the ballot paper—that I am proposing the right course. I hope that, on that basis, the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Canavan: Voters have normally made up their minds by the time they reach the polling booth. Would it not be more practicable and desirable to circulate the names as widely as possible among the Northern Ireland electorate?
Clause 5 obliges the Secretary of State to publish an initial list of the nominating representatives of each party in The Belfast Gazette. I do not think that The Belfast Gazette goes to every home in Northern Ireland. Would it not be better to make statutory provision for the list of candidates for each party also to be published in The Belfast Gazette in the first instance, thus giving the rest of the media the opportunity—or, indeed, obliging the Secretary of State—to publish the parties' list of candidates throughout Northern Ireland, rather than just leaving it to people to turn up in the polling booths to check the information?

Mr. Ancram: As I said earlier, we intend to ensure that the lists are published and fully available. I presume, and have been given every indication, that if there is a date on which the lists are made available, the parties taking part in the political process will take advantage of that, to try to ensure that they receive the maximum publicity for the names that they are putting forward. That is a normal part of the electoral process

Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely everyone who goes to the polling booth need not keep all those lists in mind. It is a simple matter for people to put a cross by the name of the party that they favour. No one will have to keep 150 names in mind, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) suggested. People will be voting for a party, and they will simply put a cross by the name of the party that they want. That is a good deal easier than picking names on an alphabetical basis.

Mr. Ancram: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says, that the election is about putting a cross against a party. As part of the process of informing the electorate about which party to support, it is obviously relevant to know the names on the local list.
On that basis, the issue between us is one of presentation, and I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will withdraw his amendment.
In answer to an earlier question, the subordinate legislation will amend the election rules so that the names of candidates will appear in the polling booths.

Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that the Minister agrees that this has been a useful debate. As a result of the comments in the early part of the debate on the amendments, I have become more and more worried that the system is so complex that it would have been better to use a proportional representation system with the single transferable vote. In his explanation of why he did not move in that direction, the Minister suggested that, for some theological reason which was not clear to me, one of the parties would have vetoed such a system.
The Minister is much closer to the matter than I am and the Committee will have to trust his judgment. Some of us are worried that in future we may have to warn him that we told him so. He will obviously get the system that he is going for. I will not stand in his way and I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right at other times and in other places to continue the discussion on the value and advantages of a single transferable vote system. Having regard to the details that have been produced as a result of the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Amendments made: No. 142, in page 7, line 5, at end insert '—Communist Party of Ireland'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

No. 48, in page 7, line 26, after 'Party', insert '(SDLP)'.—[Mr. McGrady.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to

Schedule 2

THE FORUM

Mr. McGrady: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 7, line 38, leave out 'elected by the members' and insert
'appointed by the members from within their own number in accordance with the Rules of Procedure'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 60, in page 7, line 38, leave out 'election' and insert 'appointment'.
No. 174, in page 7, line 39, leave out 'member' and insert 'High Court Judge'.
No. 72, in page 7, line 39, at end insert
'from amongst the delegates of the party with the most delegates.'.
No. 57, in page 8, line 19, leave out 'election' and insert 'appointment'.

Mr. McGrady: Amendment No. 60 is a necessary corollary to amendment No. 61. I shall also speak to amendment No. 57.
The amendment is simple and clear and relates to how the first chairman of the forum should be appointed. As the appointment will be the first exercise by the forum, we should like to think that it will be a matter for consultation and consensus and that the elective process of a majority decision, whether weighted or not, would not be a good inaugural activity for the forum. The procedure which we suggest has been used in other quarters, and we simply ask that the forum should be able to appoint rather than elect the chairman.
Furthermore, the amendment states that the chairperson shall be
appointed by the members from within their own number in accordance with the Rules of Procedure".
We want the forum to illustrate some consensus in its first activity. The amendment contains nothing more significant or hidden than the simple desire and wish that the parties attending the forum, by consensus, give the chairmanship to the person—man or woman—whom they feel will best serve their purposes with equity and justice.
Consequential to that is amendment No. 57, which refers to procedures under paragraph 4, where the word "election" appears. Simply to be consistent, we ask that the word "appointment" be substituted for "election".
The proposals are straightforward and simple. My party and I hope that they will show the good will and consensus that we sincerely hope will exist in the forum during its first activity. If that is accomplished and successful, it will augur well for the forum's subsequent proceedings

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Amendment No. 61 concerns the election of the forum's chairman. I concur with what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has said about the desirability of achieving consensus in the forum's affairs. The amendments in the name of his leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), would amend paragraph 1(2) of schedule 2 so that, in place of the reference to the chairman of the forum being elected by its members, the Bill would speak of him or her being appointed by members from within their own number and in accordance with the rules of procedure. We have little difficulty with most of the thinking underlying the amendments. As we have said, we envisage the forum operating on the basis of broad consensus and we would welcome it if it were possible to arrive at a decision about the choice of a chairman by that means, without a vote.
It is clear from the drafting of paragraph 3(1) of the schedule that, in all it does, the forum will need to conduct itself in accordance with the rules of procedure. Those rules have not yet been considered and the definitive set is, of course, for the forum to determine, again by weighted majority and with the Secretary of State's agreement. As to the chairman coming from among the members of the forum, we have always envisaged that he would.
I hope therefore that I have been able to give some assurance to the hon. Member for South Down and his colleagues. I cannot accept the amendment and the others related to it as the substitution of "appointment" for "election" of the chairman is potentially troublesome because of its ambiguity. Courts might strive to discover a meaning that might be some distance away from what the hon. Gentleman intends.
The Bill provides election by the 75 per cent. criterion, which is an efficient way to choose the chairman and, we hope, a procedure that will encourage parties to work together to look for consensus. That concludes what I need to say on the group of amendments.

Mr. William Ross: Surely it does not, because amendment No. 174 seems to take care of all the difficulties at which we might be looking. Surely a High Court judge would be a reasonable person to be appointed to run the show until a chairman was elected. In similar situations in councils, on occasion the procedure is for the clerk of the council to take the chair until such time as the members nominate and elect a chairman or mayor.
The duties laid on the person nominated by the Secretary of State will be of short duration and will be very light. In those circumstances, surely the Secretary of State could find a judge to take a day off from the courts. With the ending of terrorism, I suspect that the judges have rather more time on their hands than previously. One of them could go to Castle buildings, or wherever the meetings take place, until this little task is carried out

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is quite right and I should have dealt with that. The hon. Gentleman proposes that a High Court judge should be appointed as the interim chairman. The interim appointment is a stopgap. We hope that it will be possible for the forum, at an early stage and preferably by consensus, to reach a decision on the appointment of the chairman.
Again, as one would expect, there is obvious attraction in the amendment because of the impartiality and even-handedness that such an appointment would guarantee. However, in a sense, it is a little opprobrious to suggest that those qualities could not be found in a member of the forum. I believe that they could. I remember what was said yesterday about our late colleague, Sir James Kilfedder.
I have said that we envisage this as a stopgap appointment and I do not believe that we need to look beyond the forum. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see the force of what I have said. I do not believe that the Committee should wish to see in the Bill a specific requirement for a specific category of non-member chairman to be selected in the interim. I regret that I cannot accept the amendment

Mr. Ross: I can conceive—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) intervening or has the Secretary of State finished?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I thought that it was an intervention, Miss Fookes

Mr. Ross: The Secretary of State is extremely kind to allow me to intervene in the closing seconds of his remarks.
It is conceivable that the vote of the member appointed from the forum would make the difference between 75 and 74 per cent. In those circumstances, it could be

difficult if he had to cast his vote, possibly for himself. Would it not be wise in those circumstances to have an outsider?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hear what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not find it sufficiently persuasive.
Amendment No. 72, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), requires that the interim chairman should be a member of the largest party in the forum. Again, I see the force of that argument, and I do not doubt that good candidates would be available. However, at what may be a sensitive period, albeit, I hope, a short one, we believe that the Secretary of State should be free to choose whomever in the forum seems best suited in the circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his amendment

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: The official Opposition have a great deal of sympathy with the spirit of amendments Nos. 60 and 61 in trying to establish a set of rules by consensus, not majoritarianism, and based on consultation, as the hon. Member for South Down described. The difficulty which we perceive is that the Secretary of State has to set out the rules of procedure while the people concerned agree their own rules of procedure, so he will be giving them a set parameters beforehand with which to work.
On the amendments, it might be helpful if the Committee was assured that the initial rules set up and the actual rules of procedure of the forum will be based on the principle of consensus and consultation, rather than on majoritarianism

Mr. Wilshire: I had intended—

It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Question agreed to

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made

Mr. Wilshire: Such little cameos make me proud to be British. Although I realise that I should not comment on people who sit upstairs, it is perhaps such things that make our procedures quite incomprehensible. It is rather lucky that not many people witnessed the farce which we have just enjoyed.
I had intended to keep Trappist vows on the fact that I had tabled amendment No. 72, but since my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred to it, I feel rather obliged to say that, on mature reflection, I wish that I had not.

Mr. McGrady: I should like to respond to the Secretary of State's comments. I accept the sincerity of his wish that consensus should be the forum's modus operandi and that the first example of that should be the


appointment of the chairman. He said, however, that there was some difficulty from his point of view with the logistics because the forum would not at that stage have adopted its rules of procedure. As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said, subsequent paragraphs show that the Secretary of State will be presenting the first set of rules of procedure for the forum's first day of business. It would therefore be entirely within his competence to adopt the letter and sentiment of amendments Nos. 60 and 61, to which he has—if not legally, certainly spiritually—acquiesced. It would be quite in order for him to include in those rules of procedure the appointment of a chairman by consensus.
It is unfortunate that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is disjointed in relation to this debate, because it favours consensus in the rules of procedure on which the forum will act. It is entirely within the ambit of the current powers of the Secretary of State in preparing his pro forma rules of procedure to say that the appointment should be by consensus rather than an election by majoritarian process

Rev. Martin Smyth: May I probe a statement that the Secretary of State made earlier? I may have misheard him, but I gathered that he intended to nominate or appoint the first chairman, to get the forum moving, and I got the impression that the chairman would be chosen from among the elected members. Would it not be better to follow the tradition of the House and its Committees and allow the clerk of the forum—I take it that somebody will be there to keep a record—to be the person who presides while the forum elects or appoints its chairman, rather than the Secretary of State's making an appointment that might colour what the forum did thereafter?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Paragraph 1(2) provides that
 "The chairman shall be elected by the members, but until the first election has taken place he shall be a member nominated by the Secretary of State.
I have been responding to amendment No. 174, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry to the effect that that should not happen, and that the chairman should be a High Court judge instead. The Bill provides for the chairman to be a member of the forum

Mr. John D. Taylor: May I recommend a European practice for the first session of the new forum? Far from the Secretary of State's taking upon himself the responsibility of selecting the chairman of the forum, the forum could appoint the eldest elected member as the chairman. Until the stage when the forum proceeds to elect its own chairman, the eldest member—[Interruption.] No, I think that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) would qualify before me. Until the forum elected its own chairman, following European practice, the eldest member would remain the chairman.
I was astounded by what was said by the hon. Member for South Down—the constituency neighbouring mine. We are talking about an electoral process in which the people of Northern Ireland, through the ballot, will express their opinion and elect their representatives to a forum, yet the hon. Gentleman denigrated the electoral process. He said that he was against elections and wanted someone to be selected rather than elected.
How do we select a chairman of a forum? At the end of the day, the chairman must be elected by the people who represent the electorate of Northern Ireland. The hon.

Member for South Down must accept that, in the context of the United Kingdom of which Northern Ireland is a part, the Irish community within Northern Ireland, which he represents, is a minority community. The hon. Gentleman certainly has a positive contribution to make, but it is a minority contribution, and he must accept his position within the state of Northern Ireland

Mr. McGrady: Surely that is a gross misinterpretation of what I said. I suggested that the chairman of the forum be appointed from among the elected members of the forum

Mr. Taylor: I challenge the hon. Gentleman to explain the difference between being appointed by the elected members of the forum and being elected by the members of the forum

Mr. McGrady: Consensus

Amendment negatived

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 8, line 2, leave out from 'be' to end of line 3 and insert 'on 6th June 1996'

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 78, in page 8, line 3, at end insert
'which shall be no later than eight weeks from the date of the election'
No. 138, in page 8, line 3, at end insert
'within 7 days of the declaration of the result of the election held under the provisions of this Act.'
No. 53, in page 8, line 4, after 'times', insert 'and locations'
No. 54, in page 8, line 5, after 'forum', insert
'but shall not take place until after the negotiations mentioned in section 1 have commenced.'
No. 59, in page 8, line 5, after 'forum', insert
'according to the Rules of Procedure'
No. 62, in page 8, line 6, after 'meet', insert 'in plenary session'
No. 25, in page 8, line 8, leave out 'may' and insert 'are intended to'
No. 63, in page 8, line 9, at end insert 'in plenary session'
No. 69, in page 8, line 9, at end insert
'but the Secretary of State shall not prevent the holding of a meeting for more than eight consecutive weeks.'
No. 65, in page 8, line 9, at end insert—
'(3A) The proceedings of the forum shall be in public and appropriate provision shall be made for the public to be able to observe its proceedings and for the broadcasting of those proceedings.'
No. 167, in page 8, line 9, at end insert—
'(3A) There shall be appropriate provision for members of the public and the media to observe, publish, broadcast and televise the proceedings of the Forum.'
A manuscript amendment, in page 8, line 3, at end insert—
'() The time decided under sub-paragraph (1) shall be—
(a) after the commencement of negotiations within section 2, and


(b) within, or as soon as possible after the expiry of, the period of four weeks beginning with the date of the poll in the elections.'.

Mr. Trimble: I shall also deal with our amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 65.
Amendment No. 64 relates to the first meeting of the forum. Under the paragraph 2 of schedule 2, the Secretary of State has discretion about when the meeting will take place. The amendment would preserve some discretion for him in that he could choose at which time it met on 6 June but would ensure that the forum meets on that date. The object is to ensure that it meets before the beginning of the negotiations on 10 June.
We are electing people to a body called a forum from which the negotiators will be drawn. There is a sequence there, and it is appropriate that we should respect it and follow it through. Consequently, I was very disappointed by the Secretary of State's manuscript amendment, which shows that he intends to prevent the forum from meeting for up to four weeks after the election and ensure that it meets after the opening of negotiations. I have two observations on that.
In the previous debate, there were references to consensus. I know of no discussions between the Secretary of State and any of my hon. Friends about when the meeting should take place. He has made no attempt to seek agreement. There is no element of consensus about the way in which he is proceeding. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) is no longer in her place as she referred at great length to the need to proceed by consensus. I am sorry that she is not here to argue for consensus on this issue, which would give her the opportunity to show that she is not entirely one-sided. The matter should have been discussed with the parties. It is not sensible for the Secretary of State to proceed in this way.
Secondly, the Secretary of State's high-handed actions will be counterproductive—of that he can be sure. It is foolish of him to start this process in a way that will make it less likely to begin in a good atmosphere. That is what his action has done. He has ensured that there will be anger in our party about the beginning of negotiations. He could have operated in a way that would have been conducive to a good meeting. I should have liked the negotiations to begin in a constructive spirit but that will be difficult in view of the way that he is behaving

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman jumping to conclusions on this matter in so adverse a way. It was made clear on Second Reading that we proposed that the forum should meet after the opening meeting of the negotiations. In response to an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that it should meet no later than eight weeks after the date of the poll, I have sought in my manuscript amendment—which the hon. Gentleman has seen because it is in the Vote Office—to halve that time. It is not a question, as I shall make clear when I have the opportunity, of postponing it for four weeks but that any postponement shall be until no later than four weeks thereafter. I shall have an opportunity to develop that, but it does not bear

the adverse interpretation that the hon. Gentleman is putting on it. I thought that the sooner that I made that clear, the better

Mr. Trimble: I shall listen to what the Secretary of State has to say, but meanwhile I stand by everything that I have said. I find this behaviour offensive. The Secretary of State says that it is proposed that it will be done. He should not consider that he can just propose such matters. We are not operating in a colonial atmosphere. He should operate through due consultation with the parties in an attempt to achieve agreement with them. This process, whether in the negotiations or in the forum, will not be successful unless a serious effort is made to achieve agreement. On this matter, no effort has been made. That is not the way in which we should proceed. I shall listen with care to what the Secretary of State has to say in order to recover from the serious error that I consider that he has made.
My amendments Nos. 62 and 63 make what I hope the Secretary of State will recognise is a sensible adjustment to the provision in paragraph 2(3) of schedule 2, which deals with the relationship between the forum and the negotiations. That paragraph seems likely to lead to the frustration or stultification of the forum. My amendments to ensure that they do not both meet when they are in plenary session are designed to enable them to operate in a flexible way with regard to bilateral committees in the negotiations and in the forum.
My amendment No. 167 relates to the proceedings of the forum being held in public, with appropriate provision for publicity, something to which I hope that the Secretary of State will be agreeable, whether in the terms of the amendment or by making the necessary facilities available as and when the forum meets

Mr. Wilshire: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 78 and 69 in my name. I had not quite anticipated that I would be speaking to them after the hon. Member for Upper Bann had made some serious points about the lead amendment, which in many ways follows on from my two amendments.
Amendments Nos. 78 and 69 arise from the fact that I read the Bill with great care and noted that nowhere did it say that the forum had to meet and that the Secretary of State was seeking to take powers to suspend meetings of the forum for an indefinite period. I have made it clear in the past two days that I approach a fair amount of the legislation with a degree of suspicion. It seemed sensible to require the Secretary of State to convene a meeting of the forum and to limit the length of time during which he could suspend.
I freely admit that I plucked the period of eight weeks out of the air. It seemed to me that one had to say something. I offer no particular justification for eight weeks or any other period. The motive behind both my amendments is to limit the Secretary of State's power and enable the people of Northern Ireland, having elected people, to know that those people can meet on their behalf within a reasonable time.
Given the happenings of yesterday, I am sure that hon. Members can imagine my joy when I went into the Vote Office this morning and noted that the Government had tabled amendments to my amendments, the effect of


which was to suggest that at least two of my amendments were to be accepted. My joy was unbridled. I had spent an entire day losing absolutely everything, only to discover that at last something had been offered in my direction. Not only had it been offered, but my eight weeks had been improved to four weeks. I thought that at last Wilshire was making some progress until I was asked for a little chat and told that perhaps it was not quite so simple after all, that Parliamentary Counsel had been let loose on my layman's drafting and that an alternative manuscript might be necessary. Nevertheless, my amendments, or the spirit of them, were to be accepted..
The only question that I had the I shall repeat now, because I should like to have the explanation put into the record in a way that we can all understand. As I suggested eight weeks and when I came in this morning the Secretary of State was suggesting four weeks, why do we now have a manuscript amendment which confirms four weeks but says in paragraph (b):
or as soon as possible after the expiry of, the period of four weeks"?
Due to my suspicious frame of mind, I am a little nervous that we may have a watering down of an absolute four weeks to four weeks or thereabouts. Earlier today, I was told why it was necessary to put in "or as soon after", but as I am a layman I could not quite grasp it. I should therefore be grateful if it could be further explained to me.
At the risk of being churlish, and in the hope that I can say all that I wish in one contribution, there are those who would say that having got at least two concessions I should be grateful and call it a day. However, I shall risk yet more criticism and say that I am afraid that these small concessions cannot disguise the intransigence that a lot of hon. Members ran into yesterday when we discussed far more fundamental points about the Bill than whether it should be four weeks or eight weeks or for how long we should suspend meetings.
However welcome the two concessions may be, they do not override my concern at the refusal to put into writing the informal reassurances that we have been given. Every time hon. Members have asked that it be confirmed that the Government will stand firm, there has always been a reason why the amendments indicating that they should stand firm should not be rejected.
The two welcome small concessions do not override my deep concern at the repeated indications yesterday that the Government are still not ready to say that they are prepared to stand up to Dublin as it continues to make demand after demand. All of those amendments—which are far more important than these—were accepted.
Above all else, despite however welcome these two amendments are, nowhere in the debate yesterday—or on any other occasion that I have raised these matters—were the Government willing to accept an amendment which signals with total clarity that terrorists will not be allowed to bomb the Government into submission. They are the amendments that I would like to be welcoming. Nevertheless, I welcome the two concessions that have been made.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I speak to amendments Nos. 138 and 25, which are in my name. The first amendment deals with a matter just referred to by the hon. Member for Spelthorne—namely, how soon after the election it is appropriate for the forum to meet. I am quite content with

the terms of the amendment of the hon. Member for Upper Bann to have a precise date and I am also quite content with the date that he has suggested.
However, I have allowed a little more flexibility and said that the forum should meet within seven days so that no precise date would have to be set so far in advance. I have made it clear that within a short period of people being elected to the forum they should sit down in the forum. That is something that the Secretary of State should have permitted. The terminology that he used was a little vague. First, there was reference to four weeks and now it might be more than four weeks—no one can be quite sure exactly how long it may be.
Let us look at this in terms of the period of time that we are talking about. Four weeks from 30 May—the result probably being known on 1 June—would take us to the beginning of July and a little longer may take us to 11 or 12 July. What other good ideas does the Secretary of State have for the opening day of the forum? The proposals put forward by the Ulster Unionist party and my party would be the most appropriate in the circumstances. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider them at this stage.
Amendment No. 25 also deals with the word "may", but it has been dealt with slightly differently by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim and me. It relates to the Secretary of State's powers to determine that it would not be appropriate for the forum to meet if there are to be meetings of the negotiations. Schedule 2, paragraph 2(3) says that if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State,
it would not be appropriate for the forum to meet because negotiations within section 2 may take place",
the Secretary of State could inform the chairman of the forum that the forum should not meet. There may be negotiations every day of the week so, effectively, that provision makes it possible that the forum would never meet. To sharpen the paragraph slightly, amendment No. 25 would insert the words "are intended to" instead of the word "may" so that, if it is specifically intended for the negotiating teams to meet, the Secretary of State would be empowered to exercise the power that he has under this provision.
It would be useful for the Secretary of State to clarify, so that we all have it on the record, that we are not talking about two political parties meeting in a bilateral forum, or even about three parties meeting. I presume that the reference in the Bill means that we are talking about what might be described as plenary sessions of the negotiating teams. It is important that we have that on the record, so that there is no doubt afterwards.

Mr. McGrady: Dame Janet, I do not intend to press amendment No. 59, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We see in the proposals before us another attack on the forum. I was reading in Hansard of 24 January 1996 that the Prime Minister, replying to the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, had some interesting things to say about the forum. I was not in the House the day he made that statement, but he said:
I see the election providing a pool of representatives from which party delegations to the talks could be drawn, and a means to index the strength of the parties' delegations in the talks process. Apart from that, of course, I see the election providing, by weighted


majority vote, an initial mechanism for testing widespread acceptability within Northern Ireland of the outcome of any talks process."—[Official Report, 24 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 357]
The Prime Minister promised us that that is what the forum was to be. Amendments were moved in an attempt to establish the promise made, but they were rejected by the Government.
On 21 March 1996, the Prime Minister said:
The legislation
that will bring the forum about
will also provide for the forum to be able to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies or individuals can be made."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 498.]
There is no such provision in the Bill. We are told that there is nothing to prohibit it, but we were told that it would be legislated for—that it would be provided—and there is no provision.
Now we have another attack on the forum. We are told that it can be elected and people drawn from it can be on the negotiating body, but that the forum itself will not meet for four weeks or perhaps more after its election. We know that we can get a date of 10 June, and that that must be kept at all costs because it was agreed with Dublin, to placate the IRA and get things moving. There is no suggestion of a date of 10 June or as near to it as we can get. Another attack has been launched to postpone the meeting of the forum. I suggest to the House—I support the comments of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—that we are witnessing more and more opposition from those who initially launched a vicious attack against the very idea of elections and a forum. We now have a new parliamentary procedure: it is called consensus. We do not take any votes; we simply have consensus. We would wait a long time to achieve consensus in this place—not one Bill or Order in Council would be passed.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if a majority of people were to express their willingness to leave the United Kingdom and join some form of all-Ireland body, they would do so by a majority of 50 per cent. plus one and not by consensus?

Rev. Ian Paisley: If it is a one-way street to a republic, there will be majority of one and 50 per cent., but any decision to remain within the United Kingdom will be attacked because there has been no consensus. That is the way it works.
The forum will mirror the thinking of the people of Northern Ireland in a unique way because of the strange manner of electing candidates and topping up election results. Perhaps the Government are making preparations for an election that they expect to lose: if they were to introduce the Northern Ireland system here, they could remain in power by topping up from another list and increasing their numbers..
What is it all about? It is an attack on the forum. If the Secretary of State thinks that the forum will be his puppet—to be stopped when he stops it and to go when he wants it to—he will be strangely surprised. The forum will not fill that role. Those who do not agree with my

political views will not be kicked around either—the Secretary of State may find them even more intransigent than I am.

Mr. Wilshire: Having listened to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I am feeling extremely guilty, as I started the hare. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that my amendment limits the obstruction to eight weeks or to four weeks and that without it there would perhaps never be a meeting? It may be an advantage rather than an obstruction.

Rev. Ian paisley: We do not blame the hon. Gentleman at all. We welcome his amendments and we are very glad that he squeezed the Secretary of State to agree to four weeks. However, he has himself underscored the fact that his joy turned to grief and pain when he noticed that the wording referred to four weeks or soon after that, which could mean 12 July or black Saturday—most hon. Members will now know what that is. Anyone who wishes to know can seek out the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) who will be able to tell them, as an imperial grandmaster of that particular organisation.
The hon. Gentleman should be happy with his great accomplishment. I hope that the four weeks will be enforced. However, I do not think that the Prime Minister should tell us that the forum is a
mechanism for testing widespread acceptability within Northern Ireland of the outcome of any talks process".—[Official Report, 24 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 357.]
That idea was voted down yesterday. I do not think that he should say that the legislation
will also provide for the forum to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies … can be made".—[Official Report, 12 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 498.]
We know that the legislation does not provide for that. Again, we see the forum being de-horned.

Mr. Illsley: I wish to speak specifically to amendments Nos. 53 and 54. We believe strongly that the meetings of the forum should not take place until after the negotiations have commenced. I am sorry that certain hon. Members appear to consider that an attack on the forum, but in our view the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the negotiations: hence its title. The negotiations should therefore be given precedence over the meetings of the forum.
All hon. Members who have attended these debates have heard expressed the fear that the possibility of a forum, assembly or convention could be considered as a return to a Stormont-type situation, with legislative or administrative powers. Those fears have been allayed by comments in Committee, but it is clear that Unionist members would like to see the forum upgraded or enhanced, and given precedence over the negotiations.
We maintain that the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate elections that will provide delegates to the negotiations. The purpose of the Bill is not to facilitate delegates to the forum, and the negotiations should take precedence.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Member appreciate that, for negotiations to take place, there has to be a willingness on the part of representatives of the major


party and the majority in Northern Ireland to take part? If their noses are constantly being rubbed in the dirt and their aspirations constantly denigrated, that may not create an atmosphere conducive to those negotiations taking place in a spirit that will produce the possibility of a result.

Mr. Illsley: Of course I accept that negotiations have to take place with all the parties represented around the table. That is the whole basis of the elections and the Bill. For the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that aspirations are being denigrated simply because the date of negotiations will take precedence over the date of the meetings of the forum is to over-egg the pudding.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I can follow the hon. Gentleman's argument that he sees the start of the negotiations as a priority, but is there anything inconsistent between that view and also arguing that, immediately afterwards, all the delegates should be called to the forum? The suggestion that the delegates can be held out for four weeks or more is what is causing concern. That meeting should surely be much more prompt.

Mr. Illsley: I do not have any problem with that. Amendments Nos. 69 and 78, about eight and four weeks, were tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who has readily accepted the blame for starting the hare running. I have no problem with the forum commencing as soon as possible after the negotiations have commenced. I am sure that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will be able to give some reassurance that the Government will seek to have meetings of the forum as soon as possible after negotiations have commenced.
As I have said, we feel that the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the negotiations, and the impression should not be given that the negotiations will be subordinate to the forum. The forum must be given its due weight in the Bill, but it should not take precedence over the negotiations which are the main purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Trimble: I can tell the hon. Member—this is not a question, it is a statement—that this process has two tracks to it. While we agree that the forum will not take precedence over the negotiations or determine the outcome, as the Bill provides, we will certainly not agree to the forum being sidelined in the way that he appears to wish.

Mr. Illsley: Again, I wish to place it on record that the Opposition do not see the forum as being sidelined. If the hon. Gentleman were to read our original amendment, which has been badly drafted, he would see that our purpose was simply to ensure that the negotiations began before the forum, and not to sideline, lessen or diminish the forum in any way. The negotiations will take precedence, and that is the reason for the Bill.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman see the forum as an initial mechanism for testing widespread acceptability within Northern Ireland of the outcome of the talks process by these negotiations?

Mr. Illsley: No. I see the forum as it is explained in the Bill—as a mechanism for promoting dialogue while

the negotiations are taking place. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is again quoting the comments of the Prime Minister, to which he referred earlier. The forum is part of the Bill, with the Bill facilitating the negotiations and the forum running alongside them promoting that dialogue and expressing the views.
As a consequence, we cannot support the amendments which set a date for the forum which predates the negotiations. Therefore, we cannot support amendments Nos. 64 and 138, which set a date which predates 10 June.
Amendment No. 54 has been incorporated into a manuscript amendment, with which the Opposition agree. That manuscript amendment also takes into account the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Spelthorne. Unfortunately, amendment No. 54 was wrongly drafted, but it called for the first meeting of the forum to be at a time after negotiations had commenced. However, the manuscript amendment incorporates amendment No. 54, and we are happy to support it.
We are concerned that the manuscript amendment has a time limit of four weeks, and the hon. Member for Spelthorne, in his sorrow at having his amendment carved up, made the point that the manuscript amendment says:
after the expiry of, the period of four weeks
We are concerned that any further slippage there would lead to some criticism that the forum is being delayed by too long a period, and hope, as I said earlier, that the Secretary of State will give an assurance that the forum could commence as soon as possible after negotiations have started.
Amendment No. 53 in the names of my hon. Friends refers to the locations of the meetings of the forum. We strongly believe that the forum should be allowed, once it sets its own rules of procedure and with the authority of the Secretary of State, to meet in whatever locations it chooses. It would benefit from being able to move to other locations if necessary to take evidence; to make it easier for the forum to obtain the views of the people of Northern Ireland, lobbying associations or anyone else who wishes to contribute to it.
We are somewhat concerned about amendments Nos. 62 and 63, concerning plenary sessions. If they are accepted, we hope that meetings of the committees of the forum, not the meetings of the plenary sessions, will not interfere with negotiations, in the hope that those negotiations will be able to progress without being hindered by meetings of the forum and the duplication of members meeting in either body.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I begin by responding to amendment No. 25, which was spoken to by the hon. Members for East Londonderry and for North Antrim. Amendment No. 25 would amend paragraph 2(3) of schedule 2 so that the Secretary of State's powers to notify dates on which the forum might not meet would apply only to those when the negotiations are intended to take place, rather than when they "may" take place. I have thought about this carefully; I understand the reasons why the amendment was tabled, and I am happy to say that I am able, on behalf of the Government, to accept it.
Having said that, I can now offer further reassurance. For my part, I am very much looking forward to meetings of the forum. I believe that the forum itself has extremely


important work to do, and I think that it is an innovation that is much to be welcomed and admired. It could play an important and valuable complementary role in relation to the main negotiating process.
Part of the importance of the forum as we see it is that it will give the ordinary people of Northern Ireland a role to play in the process of developing dialogue and the mutual understanding which could contribute to the search for a lasting political accommodation and a permanent peace. There is no question of the Government wishing to sideline it; the Government are responsible for bringing forward legislation to create it.
The elections themselves will give the people of Northern Ireland an opportunity to express their views on who they want to represent them in the negotiations and in the forum. Beyond that, we believe that the forum should operate in a way that would provide an on-going mechanism for securing and channelling the views of the people of Northern Ireland on the issues that the forum will be considering.
I see a primary function of the forum as conducting hearings at which public submissions could be made by community, voluntary, women's and youth groups, trade unions, business, professional organisations, the Churches, academics and others. The submissions and any subsequent consideration of them will undoubtedly inform those members of the forum who are their parties' delegates to the negotiations, but they will also, in themselves, serve to stimulate further public debate in Northern Ireland and promote that dialogue and greater mutual understanding which we all want.
I believe that that will help to create a more positive and receptive climate for the negotiations themselves, even though the latter may well need, for obvious reasons, to be conducted on a more confidential and less public basis. We welcome and support the idea that the forum might hold hearings in a range of different venues throughout Northern Ireland, to give members of the public there a greater opportunity to contribute and attend.
That is the position from which the Government start when considering the issues raised by this group of amendments. We want to take whatever steps are possible to help the forum be successful in gathering and reflecting a wide range of perspectives on the situation in Northern Ireland and stimulating public attention on the issues that will be under consideration. In principle, we agree that the forum's proceedings should not be held in private, that there should be reasonable access for members of the public, and that there should be facilities to broadcast or otherwise disseminate reports of the forum's proceedings.
The forum will not, however, be a parliamentary assembly in the normal sense, and we consider that it would not be appropriate to give it all the trappings of such a body. Subject to that, the Government intend to enter discussions with the parties likely to be represented in the forum about the level of facilities, the type of premises and the number of staff that the Secretary of State would, under paragraph 6 of the schedule, make available to the forum.
Consistent with our general approach to the forum, the Government would like to facilitate the early launch of the forum and sensible forward planning of forum business. That would enable it to plan and organise public

hearings of the sort that I have mentioned, and generally to map out a sensible programme of work. After that preamble, I deal now with the detail of the other amendments.
Amendments Nos. 64, 78 and 138 relate to the first day of the meeting of the forum. Paragraph 2 of schedule 2 leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide that day, subsequent meetings being at times of the forum's own choosing, subject to the calendar of the negotiations. The hon. Members for Upper Bann, for North Antrim and for Belfast, East all seek that it should be in the week following the election, although my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is content that it should be not later than eight weeks from the date of the election.

Mr. Wilshire: May I put it gently to my right hon. and learned Friend that to say that I am content with a period of eight weeks is rather overstating the case? I was seeking to make it impossible for the intervening period to exceed eight weeks, but I think that "within a week" would have been much more realistic.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I accept that. The same goes for another amendment, to which I shall turn shortly and which sets a limit or extremity.
We envisage the forum's making an early start; we do not intend to delay. We expect it to begin its work long before the end of the eight-week period that my hon. Friend has in mind—as an extremity or limit. Equally, as I said on Second Reading, we do not envisage its meeting before 10 June. That date has long been set for the opening of negotiations. It is bound to be an extremely busy period, and it is not in the general interests of the Bill's provisions for the forum to meet before then.
I understand the reasons that have led hon. Members to support amendments calling for the opening meeting to be held before the start of negotiations. As I said yesterday, the Bill is intended to provide a gateway to negotiations: that is reflected in its title. The primacy lies in the negotiations.
That is not in any way to denigrate, undermine, sideline or reduce the importance that—as I have said—we attach to the forum's functions, but the Government believe that the negotiations should carry primacy. Consequently, we believe that the negotiations should open, and that the forum should meet as soon thereafter as practicable. As I have said, I want that to be delayed no longer than is necessary, and a sensible date to be fixed in the light of the progress of the negotiations.
The manuscript amendment seeks to reflect the spirit of amendments Nos. 78 and 54. I am sympathetic to both, but I must make two comments. I feel that amendment No. 78, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, allows an unnecessarily wide discretion. I do not contemplate a delay of anything like eight weeks before the forum meets; I should like four weeks to be regarded as the maximum, and the manuscript amendment says as much. I stress that I envisage the forum's meeting well within four weeks.
As for amendment No. 54, tabled by Opposition Members, we have made it clear that we do not envisage the forum's meeting before the start of the negotiations. In fact, the amendment refers to the second meeting's taking place after the start of the negotiations, but that is a mistake.
I am sympathetic to that amendment, and my manuscript amendment brings it together with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. The effect is to add a new sub-paragraph (2) to paragraph 2 of schedule 2. It places two conditions on me—that, when I set the time for the forum's first meeting, it should be after the start of the negotiations, and that, consistent with that, it should be as soon as possible after the elections, within a limit of four weeks.
If, for some unforeseen reason, the start of the negotiations was delayed, the forum's first meeting would also be delayed. That is a remote contingency, and we see no reason to believe that it will arise, but it accounts for the language that my hon. Friend questioned.
It follows from what I have said that we cannot commend amendments Nos. 64 and 138. Amendment No. 53 proposes that meetings of the forum should be held at locations, as well as times, decided by its members. That logically raises a question on which we have yet to reach final decisions. They will be subject to consultation about where the forum's main base should be. Castle buildings in Belfast is an obvious choice with a number of attractions, but we shall need to reflect further on that, in particular in relation to the desirability of having the public there.
We shall, of course, welcome views about the possibility of the forum or its committees venturing away from the home base occasionally. We canvassed that in the consultation paper that we issued earlier in the year, and had it in mind in preparing the Bill.
The Bill simply requires the Secretary of State to provide for the forum the use of premises, but we are ready to contemplate that, for example, in the course of hearing from different interests, a committee of the forum may wish to venture away from the Belfast. In that case, arrangements might be made for it to make use of premises elsewhere. That might be of great value in permitting the widest range of views to be accessible to the forum.
That possibility is best dealt with by leaving the Bill as it is, subject to the assurance that I have given that we are ready to contemplate such hearings being held outside Belfast occasionally. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann said on Second Reading, there is a question of resources. The Secretary of State bears responsibility for them, and it would not be right for decisions about their use to be entirely out of his hands. On the understanding that we shall be ready to facilitate hearings away from the forum's home base occasionally, I hope that hon. Members will be willing to withdraw the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 54, 59, 62, 25, 63 and 69 bear on paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3) of the schedule, and concern the times when the forum may meet. Amendment No. 54 is overtaken by our manuscript amendment. Amendment No. 62 was moved by the hon. Member for Upper Bann and seeks to have the provisions of paragraph 2(3) for excluding concurrent meetings of the negotiations and the forum apply only to forum plenary meetings. I think that the intention is that the meetings of forum committees would not be governed by the terms of any notification by the Secretary of State.
The amendment is unnecessary. I am advised that, on a proper construction, paragraph 2(3) applies only to plenary meetings of the forum and not to committees. However, the meeting times of committees will fall to be

regulated by rules of procedure. The Government's starting point on this question is that it would be generally undesirable for there to be significant negotiation and forum business concurrently. That has a number of disadvantages. In particular, it could create serious difficulties for negotiating team members, who might find that they had two commitments at the same time. In some circumstances, concurrent meetings might be no less undesirable in the case of a forum committee.
These matters are being debated in a Committee of the whole House, and it would be possible to envisage a committee of the whole forum. A meeting of such a committee would clearly raise the same sort of questions as a plenary meeting of the forum. However, we recognise that such a bar might occasionally be unhelpful to all concerned. We can discuss these matters when the rules of procedure are formulated. For the present, I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the amendment may be regarded as unnecessary.
Amendment No. 63 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. It would confine the making of notification to times when the negotiations were being held in plenary meetings. There may be a misunderstanding here. Most of the negotiations are intended to take place in strands which are not, in the conception of the ground rules set out in the command paper, plenaries. Strict plenaries may not be very frequent, so the amendment would deprive paragraph 2(3) of most of its potential effect. I hope that my hon. Friend will be assured by that.
Amendment No. 69 would amend paragraph 2(3), so that the Secretary of State had no power to prevent the holding of forum meetings for more than eight weeks. I have dealt with that. The amendment would prevent us from taking actions that in any event we would not consider taking. We see the forum proceeding in parallel with the negotiations, albeit concurrent sittings. We do not envisage any occasion to freeze out a block of time of anything approaching eight weeks.

Mr. Wilshire: When my right hon and learned Friend spoke to amendment No. 63, he ascribed it to me. It is not my amendment, and I have no comment to make on it. I am not clear on what he said about amendment No. 69. I had the impression that he felt that he had dealt with it, but he proposes an amendment to it, and it relates to an entirely different issue from that of the manuscript amendment. It is about the first meeting of the forum. Can I take it, therefore, that he still accepts amendment No. 69, and is seeking to improve on it?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Government's position is expressed in the manuscript amendment, which I have dealt with, and I have explained the reasons for that.
Amendment No. 65 would insert a new sub-paragraph after paragraph 2(3) of schedule 2 requiring that the forum should be held in public, with a public gallery and facilities for broadcasting. Amendment No. 167 is to similar effect.
We have listened with care to the views expressed about the value of publicity for the forum's proceedings by way of broadcasting and so on. I emphasise that there is potentially considerable scope for the forum to provide a valuable platform for wider participation in the debate


on how greater understanding and greater confidence are to be built throughout the community in Northern Ireland. It is clear that that purpose cannot be achieved unless the forum's proceedings are publicised and put within the reach of the man in the street.
Therefore, substantially, we are at one with the thinking of hon. Members who have moved the amendments, within the limits of practicality. Just how fully we will be able to give effect to what they say will depend on the accommodation that we find for the forum. I have said that our consideration of that is proceeding, and that we are open to views about it. There are serious problems about Castle buildings. Equally, we share the views that have been expressed, and we think that it is important that there should be such publicity.
Those are the assurances that I am able to give. They are substantial and important. In the circumstances at present, it is as far as I am able to go. I hope that that may practically and constructively inform the course that hon. Members will take.

11 pm

Mr. Trimble: The Secretary of State tried to offer an assurance that this part of the legislation, which we consider to be of no little importance, will still have some meaningful operational existence. He did so by reading a summary of how the forum might operate in terms of providing an opportunity for the public to be involved in the process and of the way in which it could take evidence from interested groups in the community and develop a dialogue on relevant issues. We have mentioned those things before and we view them as an important part of the forum.
As I listened to the Secretary of State read that section of his speech, I wondered whether his mind was really engaged in what he was reading and saying. He does not seem to appreciate that, if dialogue and understanding are to develop—that will be essential if the negotiations are to prosper—and if there is to be that opportunity to involve the public and the thinking of other community members to inform the atmosphere and the context within which the negotiations take place, it is essential that the discussion and dialogue happen before the matters to which they might relate are dealt with in negotiations.
A simple mistake has been made here which should not be made. It confuses precedence in terms of importance with priority in time. Just because a discussion or hearings take place in the forum, or forum meetings take place before the negotiations, that does not mean that we are according precedence in terms of importance to the forum as against the negotiations. The fact that one is before the other is not significant in terms of which we regard as the more important activity. If we get it the wrong way round in our time sequence, we are destroying what could be a fruitful operation. There is substance in what the Secretary of State read out, although he did not seem to be thinking about it. I want to ensure that that substance is achieved.
We all hope that the negotiations will occur in a fruitful and positive atmosphere, but the amendment that the Secretary of State has tabled will have the contrary effect.

I think that when he received instructions from Dublin to move that amendment, he should have thought about it and spoken to them and the rest of us before accepting it.

Mr. Wilshire: I apologise for labouring a point that I raised in an intervention, but I regret that I am still not clear about exactly what is being proposed for my amendments.
Amendment No. 78 deals specifically with paragraph 2(1) of schedule 2. My proposal is that the first meeting of the forum should take place within eight weeks. The Government originally tabled an amendment proposing four weeks. We now have a manuscript amendment which relates specifically to paragraph 2(1), which is about the first meeting. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that the manuscript amendment relates to the first meeting of the forum.
Amendment No. 69 deals with paragraph 2(3), which as I understand it, is not covered by the manuscript amendment. I contend that my second amendment raises an entirely different issue—the power of the Secretary of State to suspend subsequent meetings after the first meeting. We have on the amendment paper a Government amendment that is not affected by the manuscript amendment. Earlier today, the Government were willing to table an amendment to my amendment in respect of the power to suspend subsequent meetings. Nothing that I have heard has brought my second issue within the ambit of the manuscript amendment. Is my right hon. and learned Friend still willing to accept my second amendment, which covers subsequent meetings, and does he still intend to proceed with his amendment to my amendment, which is not covered by the manuscript amendment? That is an important point.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Let me make things clear, as I do not think that I have done so. I have tabled an amendment which would set the upper limit at four weeks, which I would consider to be the absolute outside of the sort of delay that we would contemplate. That is in connection with what I was talking about earlier. Subject to that, I accept amendment No. 69. I believe that that deals with what my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for accepting my second amendment, and in the same spirit, I will accept his amendment to my second amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Manuscript amendment made: in page 8, line 3 at end insert—
'() The time decided under sub-paragraph (1) shall be—
(a) after the commencement of negotiations within section 2, and
(b) within, or as soon as possible after the expiry of, the period of four weeks beginning with the date of the poll in the elections.'.—[Sir Patrick Mayhew.]

Amendment made: No. 25, in schedule 2, page 8, line 8, leave out 'may' and insert 'are intended to'.—[Mr. Peter Robinson.]

Amendment proposed: No. 69, in schedule 2, page 8, line 9, at end insert
'but the Secretary of State shall not prevent the holding of a meeting for more than eight consecutive weeks.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]

Amendment made to the proposed amendment: (a), in line 2, leave out 'eight' and insert 'four'.—[Sir Patrick Mayhew.]

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 8, line 13, leave out
'and approved by the Secretary of State.'

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 58, in page 8, line 15, after 'quorum', insert
'and the requirement that decisions of the forum on the subject matter of its deliberations shall have the support of a clear majority of members of parties representing respectively the nationalist and unionist communities as defined in accordance with paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232'.
No. 55, in page 8, line 18, at end insert—
'(4) In exercising his functions under sub-paragraphs (1) and (3) above, the Secretary of State shall make every effort to secure that the rules of procedure of the forum facilitate the promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus across the communities in Northern Ireland.'.
No. 56, in page 8, line 23, leave out
'on a vote by at least 75 per cent. of those voting'
and insert
'by a clear majority of members of parties representing respectively the nationalist and unionist communities as defined in accordance with paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232'.
No. 71, in page 8, line 23, leave out '75' and insert '67'.
No. 175, in page 8, line 23, leave out '75' and insert '60'.
No. 66, in page 8, line 27, leave out from 'defamation' to the end of line.

Mr. Robinson: The amendment addresses the pervasive powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in almost every area of activity relating to the forum. The forum is being asked to undertake a simple task. There have been a number of bodies in Northern Ireland in the past, and none of them has had any real difficulties in agreeing its rules and procedures. I recall that a task was undertaken under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim on an earlier occasion and, with all the parties present, was passed without any great difficulty.
The Secretary of State's approval of the work carried out by the democratically elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in the forum is quite unnecessary. What factors will be informing his approval? What exactly are the criteria that will determine whether he approves the rules of procedure? Can he envisage the problems that would be created if the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland were to agree rules of procedure of which he did not approve?
I would not have balked if the Secretary of State had recognised that some degree of weighting was required for the rules to be passed by the forum, but he does not go down that road. He wants to take for himself the power to approve or reject those rules. It is neither sensible nor comfortable for the Secretary of State to hold those powers. It would be better to leave it to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, and I trust that the Secretary of State will recognise the wisdom of that.

Mr. McGrady: If amendment No. 58 were accepted, paragraph 3(2) would read:

The rules of procedure of the forum shall include provision for a quorum, and the requirement that decisions of the forum and the subject matter of its deliberations shall have the support of a clear majority of members of parties representing respectively the nationalist and unionist communities as defined in accordance with paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232.
To be consistent with that, if amendment No. 56, the second amendment that we have tabled, were accepted, paragraph 4(b), which relates to the election or removal of a chairman or the alteration of the rules of procedure, would read:
it is approved by a clear majority of members of parties representing respectively the nationalist and unionist communities as defined in accordance with paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232.
The amendments are in partnership and deal again with the question of consensus. You may have noticed, Sir Geoffrey, that on many amendments dealing with the elections and the forum, it has been a theme of my party that the concept of consensus be at the forefront of our deliberations on all such matters.
There is a temptation to argue that a weighted majority of 75 per cent. is some sort of panacea, or a substitute for a consensus, but unless there is consensus among the representatives of both broad communities in Northern Ireland, there will be no real consensus, and no matter how high a percentage is achieved in terms of the majority ruling, it simply will not work.
Our amendments would create the ethos necessary for a successful conclusion to the negotiations that will run alongside the forum. As there is consensus on the Committee between the Government and the Opposition, it would be appropriate if that element of consensus could also be applied to the deliberations that we hope to have in the negotiations and the forum.

Mr. Peter Robinson: As he attempts to persuade the Committee to support his amendment, the hon. Gentleman will see that some of us might have some difficulty in recognising its terms, because it would require a majority of both the Unionist and the nationalist community representatives. It has already been suggested that the representatives of the nationalist community who stand under the label of Sinn Fein will not take their seats in the forum, and that would reduce the number of elected representatives from the nationalist community who would be there. Is the hon. Gentleman telling the Committee that those people intend to be present in the forum? Without their presence, the amendment would have no meaning.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I recognise the path down which he is trying to lead me. I am simply attempting to ensure that those who attend the forum, whoever they may be and from whatever party they may come, will deal one with another on the basis of consent and consensus, not on the basis of majoritarian rule. It is most important that the concept of majoritarian rule be eliminated as far as possible. No weighted majority of 75 per cent.—or, indeed, of any other ad hoc fraction or percentage—should be applied to the deliberations of the forum.
I support the amendments on behalf of my party, not with any intention of curtailing or restricting anything, but simply according to the fundamental principle that


consensus in a debate that aims to find a solution is the only way in which we can move forward. In that very simple way, I commend both amendments to the Committee.

Mr. Robert McCartney: In responding to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), I must say something about the concepts of majoritarianism and consensus. "Majoritarianism" seems to be a denigrating reference to the democratic principle that in any body in which there is a difference of opinion, matters are usually decided by a majority of those present. However, it is recognised that in some circumstances the issues to be determined are so grave and significant that it is necessary to have more than a bare majority. I think that the constitution of the United States of America may be changed by a majority of 75 per cent. That figure is reckoned to be a significant loading of a simple majority in such circumstances.
I am somewhat bemused by the concept of consensus. I know the phrase from my experience of the law, where the parties to a contract are said to require a consensus ad idem, so that they are thinking about the same thing when they arrive at the subject matter of their contract. However, the way in which the hon. Member for South Down uses the word "consensus" suggests that nothing can be agreed unless the tiniest minority accepts it. That is a dog-in-the-manger's charter. People could sit there and as long as they did not participate in the magical process of consensus, nothing could be done. If we are to be honoured in the negotiating process by the presence of Sinn Fein, the magical process of consensus would render invalid any conclusion reached by those present if it insisted on its primary ideas of Brits out and self-determination on an all-Ireland basis.

Mr. McGrady: I do not want to delay the Committee by reading it all, but paragraph 24 of the ground rules, to which the amendment refers, states:
The rules for establishing sufficient consensus will be agreed in advance of negotiations by the participants and such rules will ensure that any departure from the rule of unanimity is within minimal limits and will, in all cases, ensure that any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland.
That is my definition of consensus, as referred to in the amendments.

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful for that clarification, but the hon. Gentleman used the term "a clear majority". I should have thought that 75 per cent. was a clear majority, but that is the majority to which he appears to take exception. When is a clear majority not a clear majority? He and his party would undoubtedly claim, if 50 per cent. plus one of the people could be made to favour a united Ireland, that on the basis of the Anglo-Irish agreement legislation should immediately be put in train to ship everyone in Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland. Would we hear any talk in those circumstances about this wonderful concept of consensus? I fear not.

Mr. William Ross: I was hoping that the hon. and learned Gentleman would draw the Committee's attention

to the recent vote on the proposed break-up of Canada and how small a majority it took to prevent that. We are talking about the possibility of breaking up the United Kingdom. He may care to follow that line of reasoning.

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The other term that is now bandied about as a term of abuse is majoritarianism. In so far as it is in political usage, that word applies to a majority that governs, or attempts to govern, without any concern for the constitutional, legal or human rights of minorities. When it is used in contradistinction to democratic majority government, it generally carries that suggestion. The hon. Member for South Down uses it with less discipline. Majoritarianism simply means the ordinary democratic practice of giving significant attention to the wishes of a majority. The House should look carefully at apparently reasonable terms such as "consensus" and "majoritarianism".

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have been following the hon. and learned Gentleman carefully. When the Prime Minister, whom one would think would know what his Government were doing, replied to the Leader of the Opposition, he said:
Apart from that, of course, I see the election providing, by weighted majority vote, an initial mechanism for testing widespread acceptability within Northern Ireland of the outcome of any talks process."—[Official Report, 24 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 357.]
The Prime Minister said that that majority, which would be a clear majority if it was weighted, was sufficient, but when we come into the realm of consensus, we do not know anything. We are just told, "Let us have consensus." We cannot get consensus if one party says, "We are not having it." That can be a tiny party, but it still can break the consensus.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is correct in his interpretation. The idea of a weighted majority is to provide some sort of mechanism to ensure that a minority is protected. It seems that, in this case, the Bill suggests a majority of 75 per cent. The fact that that is niggled at gives an idea of what is likely to occur when a consensus, according to the definition of the hon. Member for South Down, is ultimately sought in any negotiations.

Mr. Worthington: I shall speak to amendment No. 55, which has been tabled in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.
We should like to make our contribution on the role of the forum through its rules of procedure. We have no doubt that the forum could be valuable. It could be extremely useful, but it will be so only if it is not a threatening place; if it is not about victories and defeats. What we are about is setting up negotiations and alongside them a forum whereby people can broaden their understanding. We are not setting up a political decision-making place, but something which, as the Prime Minister said, has as its nearest equivalent the forum for peace and reconciliation that has been meeting in Dublin. This forum will have a democratic underpinning, in that the way in which the people will get to the forum will be through an election process.
Our model for the rules of procedure is very much like that which the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned, which has been agreed


between the Governments and is in paragraph 24 of the Command Paper. The forum is also a form of peace talks. It is not about political decision making. It is about broadening dialogue, understanding and consensus. Paragraph 24 says:
The rules for establishing sufficient consensus will be agreed in advance of negotiations by the participants and such rules will ensure that any departure from the rule of unanimity is within minimal limits and will, in all cases, ensure that any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland.
That seems to us to have a great deal of virtue and value to it. It says that what we are doing in the negotiations at the outset is seeking consensus that will lead to a long-lasting agreement. At this stage, we believe that everything—whether in the forum or in the peace talks—should be about seeking consensus, dialogue and understanding. We believe that if paragraph 24 is good enough for the negotiations, it is good enough for the forum.
11.30 pm
It is important that we have such a framework, such an inclusive mechanism, if the forum is to attract and to hold all parties. It must be remembered that membership of the forum is voluntary. It is important that the forum be seen as being valuable for everyone who attends it. That has been one of the successes of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. People were sceptical of that forum to start with, but those who attended it found it to be valuable and they sought a broad consensus across the communities—and we should be seeking that as well.
On checking with the lawyers about tabling an amendment on this matter, we found that we would be faced with technical problems in relation to embracing the words in paragraph 24, and that what was good enough for a Command Paper was not good enough for a piece of legislation. Perhaps the Minister can explain that in his reply. We found that if we wanted to have any success in tabling an amendment on the rules of the procedure, we could not use the original words without the lawyers objecting to the form of them.

Mr. McGrady: There is already a precedent in clause 2, which states:
The negotiations mentioned in section 1 are the negotiations referred to in Command Paper 3232 presented to Parliament on 16th April 1996.
If it is possible to have the Command Paper mentioned in one part of the Bill, surely it is appropriate and logical to have it mentioned in another part of the Bill. I am not a legal person, and I may stand corrected.

Mr. Worthington: It takes one to know one—I am not a legal person either. We believe that there would be problems in putting forward paragraph 24 in that way and having it accepted by the Government as legislatively pure. We are seeking an overarching principle which governs the rules of procedure, which inspires the forum, and which tells it the grounds on which the Secretary of State will approve the rules of procedure. The rules of procedure that are derived from the forum have to go to the Secretary of State for approval.
Our amendment tries to provide the Secretary of State and the forum with the principles on which the rules of procedure would be approved. That is why we have put it forward in this way. The Secretary of State is given the duty to

make every effort to secure that the rules of procedure of the forum facilitate the promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus across the communities in Northern Ireland.
If the forum is to have the rules approved by the Secretary of State, it must pursue that route. It is a question of style. On Second Reading, I said that at this stage of its political development, the forum should be pursuing a Select Committee style in the way that it operates, rather than the style that we are using tonight. The forum has to draw up the rules of procedure, and it must know that they will be approved only if they meet this yardstick. The Secretary of State has to draw up the first guidelines.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand what the hon. Gentleman means when he talks about Select Committee style, but on occasions Select Committees divide, and sometimes there is a difference of one vote.

Mr. Worthington: Yes. The hon. Gentleman has been a long-standing member of a Select Committee of the House and, if that Select Committee is like most Select Committees, most of its reports have been unanimous. Does he agree?

Rev. Martin Smyth: Yes, most of them. Nevertheless, Select Committees do divide regularly and one cannot always obtain consensus; allowance must be made for that.

Mr. Worthington: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in Select Committees miracles are frequently achieved which would not be anticipated at the outset of the investigation. We are simply saying that people should enter the forum in the frame of mind in which people enter Select Committee.
The point I was making before I took that valuable intervention was that the Secretary of State must draw up the first guidelines. Obviously, if the amendment is accepted, he must follow his own guidelines of seeking to promote "dialogue, understanding and consensus"—the mandate that is given by our amendment.
The forum will have a year of guaranteed life, to the end of May 1997, after which the Secretary of State may extend it for a further year. When it starts, it will have less than a year of guaranteed life. It would be unprecedented—the evidence of this evening bears that out—if the Northern Ireland forum were simply to meet and say, "We agree on the rules of procedure, " so there may be more than one or two months in which the forum seeks to approve its rules of procedure, although it would be simplest, if the Secretary of State got it right, for the forum to adopt those rules of procedure.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The first Northern Ireland Assembly and the second Northern Ireland Assembly—with more power than the forum that we are discussing—and the Constitutional Convention established their rules and procedures in about 10 days. If they could do so, surely this forum can establish its rules and procedures—which will be simpler than full parliamentary rules and procedures—in 10 days. Moreover, the Minister concerned called the leaders of the parties together before each assembly met and said, "Let us look at some rules for the first day so that, at the first meeting, we can have something on board to keep us right for the first day's proceedings." Can that be done again?

Mr. Worthington: I am inspired by the hon. Gentleman's words, and look forward to him pulling off


another miracle. I look forward to him rising to that challenge, so that within 10 days of the forum being established, it comes forward with rules of procedure that facilitate dialogue, understanding and consensus.
This issue is crucial to the success of the forum. Unless a broad consensus is pursued, the forum will not work. A forum at which everyone is not present is unbalanced and will not succeed. If everyone came to that forum using those guidelines, those rules of procedure, the forum could contribute a great deal.

Mr. William Ross: I shall speak on one amendment standing in my name and one standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann and myself.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). He proposed apple pie and motherhood and we moved through pious hope back into the age of miracles. It gives me hope that anything is possible, not only in Northern Ireland, but in the House. We might even see hon. Members on the two Front Benches agreeing on the things that divide them before we are much older if this goes on—but I would not hold my breath.
Before we go too far down that road, perhaps we should pour a bucket of cold reality over ourselves. We did not arrive at the concept—as espoused by the SDLP and others—of support by a clear majority in each community overnight or by accident. I am sure that we recall when votes were taken in Northern Ireland on the basis of a simple majority—and the House still holds with that principle. We then witnessed the erosion of Unionist power through changes in the electoral system designed to break up the "Unionist monolith"—they were the words used in this place. That did not work, and now the Government have thrust upon us a monstrous system of government. It was certainly not suggested by anyone in Northern Ireland and it is not acceptable to anyone there, as the Minister well knows.
We have seen the slow shift from a simple majority to a weighted majority of 60 per cent., 65 per cent. and now 75 per cent. The step beyond that is a majority in both communities. We have come a long way, yet people are asking for still more. If we debate the matter in a year or two, they will demand a majority of 90 per cent. plus a clear majority across the communities.
The effect of the 75 per cent. figure is that the gunmen will have to be brought on board in order to achieve it. That is the intention of the proposal—we should not run away from that simple, clear fact. We are not talking about enabling parties that are democratic in attitude and in practice to take decisions; we are talking about satisfying the gunmen. In the past 25 years, it has been my experience that the gunman adopts a very simple approach: "Do what I tell you, or I will kill you,"—and he will. Once Parliament and this country understand that, they will adopt the same jaundiced view of the 75 per cent. that I have. That is why my amendment No. 175 proposes 60 per cent., which would allow majority decisions to be taken without forcing the democratic parties to bow to the gunmen and appeal to their non-existent better nature. I ask the Government to respond to that proposition.
According to the heading, this group of amendments involves three different issues: procedure, privilege and valid decisions. I draw the Committee's attention to amendment No. 66, which reads:
Schedule 2, page 8, line 27, leave out from 'defamation' to the end of the line".
The amendment would omit from schedule 2 the words:
unless it is proved to have been made with malice".
I know that there are many lawyers in this place and that they love words that they can twist and make money from. Every lawyer must have pricked up his ears at those words.
I imagine that it is extremely difficult to prove malice. In the light of that and the fact that I do not wish to see endless court cases involving members of the forum defending themselves against allegations of malice—we are not told whether it is personal or political malice, or malice in general—we have tabled that sensible and reasonable amendment, which omits the offending words. If the Minister wishes them to remain, he should tell us why. I do not believe that that restriction applies to utterances made in this place or in the previous bodies set up in Northern Ireland. It is a simple and acceptable amendment, and I have great pleasure in commending it to the Committee. I hope that the Minister will shorten the proceedings by accepting it and by taking on board my comments about weighted majorities.

Mr. Soley: I hope to persuade the Minister to proceed along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), because amendments Nos. 58, 55 and 56 would take us where I thought the Government wanted to go. The Minister will recall that, when the Prime Minister made the statement in the House about the proposal to set up the elections and the forum, he responded positively to my request that the body should, to a considerable extent, mirror the forum for peace and reconciliation in Dublin. It was recognised that that forum had made significant progress in trying to understand the needs, fears and anxieties of the two communities represented in the north of Ireland, as well as addressing other issues. I understand that that forum did that and proceeded without votes, so I am not convinced that there is a good argument for votes in the forum under the Bill.
If we want to encourage discussion—I hope that the forum will not only encourage discussion but take evidence from different groups in Northern Ireland—the forum will work better without votes. We should give the people of Northern Ireland a voice in the forum, rather as we might do here in Select Committees or in Special Standing Committees, and enable people to give evidence to it, because that could be very valuable and would help to cross some of the divides in Northern Ireland.
The problem of votes is the 70 per cent. problem which has been mentioned by several Unionist Members. I believe that it is clear that we need to work by consensus in Northern Ireland. It is perhaps necessary to say that again, because it is not always accepted by some of the Unionist Members, but I believe it is accepted by the vast majority of other right hon. and hon. Members. We require consensus, not because we are following some grand principle of democracy in a precise design in Northern Ireland but because we recognise that in


Northern Ireland—as I said in an earlier speech—the political system has broken down. When political systems break down, people turn to violence.
At the moment, the level of violence in Northern Ireland is lower than it has been for some 25 years. That does not justify the level of violence that exists, but the level is lower than it has been for the past 25 years. It would be encouraging if we could keep it that way, and that is why we want people talking to rather than killing each other. That is what we are about when we debate the Bill. We are here tonight to pass what is, by any definition, an extraordinary piece of legislation, precisely because the system in Northern Ireland has broken down. That is why we have direct rule, and if we did not we would all be at home tucked up in bed, as we know. But because the political system has broken down, we are looking for different methods from those normally applied in a parliamentary system.
If we proceed along the lines suggested in amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 58, we could take out the contention caused by voting and we could proceed by consensus. It is also very important for the Bill to contain some recognition, as the Command Paper does—it is spelt out clearly in the Command Paper—that when decisions have to be made, especially on key issues, they should be by a majority of those representing the nationalist community and a majority of those representing the Unionist community. In that way, we could get around the problem, which one of the Unionist Members feared, that any little party, Unionist or republican, could veto progress. A little party could not veto progress because, as the Command Paper rightly points out, there would have to be a majority of both Unionists and nationalists. If we put that in the Bill and knock out the requirement for voting, we have the possibility of a forum that mirrors the one that took place in Dublin, which was very successful.
Such a forum would not threaten anyone or cause the fears that exist in Northern Ireland among Unionists and republicans alike and, above all, it would recognise the problem—which we all face, whether we are Northern Ireland Members or not—that Northern Ireland is a divided community. Until we can find a political system that works in Northern Ireland and represents the needs of both the majority and the minority communities, the system will continue to fail. If we do not want to lurch back into the extreme forms of violence that have been suffered by both the Unionist and republican communities, and suffered at the hands of Unionists and republicans alike, we have a serious duty to address the problem.
The amendments do that. They take out the problems of voting, some of which have been picked up by Unionist Members concerned about the figure of 70 per cent., or by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who has just suggested a figure of 60 per cent., and put in a consensus way of working which mirrors the forum, which was the Prime Minister's intention, and also put in the safeguard of a majority of representatives from the nationalist and Unionist communities.

Mr. Roy Beggs: To come back to reality, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that when Sinn Fein-IRA took part in the forum for peace and reconciliation in Dublin, surrounded by all its natural friends and associates within the nationalist community,

it was unable to reach a consensus. How realistic is it then to expect that consensus can be reached within Northern Ireland?

Mr. Soley: No one has claimed, least of all me, that this is a quick and easy solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. What I am saying—the alternative which is being suggested by the Unionists—is that it is very unrealistic to suggest that we can just go back to something that existed before the breakdown of the Northern Ireland political system. If we do not accept that—this is something which we must all address—we are saying that we are prepared to go back to the violence in Northern Ireland as it has been during the past 25 years. Frankly, we are not prepared to do that.
As I said earlier, the reason why the Labour and Tory parties are closer to each other on that issue than they are to either of the Unionist parties in the House, and the reason why the British and Irish Governments are so close, is that we are determined not to go back to that violence. After a period of benign neglect of Northern Ireland, which broke down in 1969, we lurched into a period of crisis management under successive Governments. Only when we had the Anglo-Irish Agreement did we have a policy which we began to follow through which has its logical consequence in the Bill. We now have policies which we are following jointly with the Irish Government and we are being realistic and saying that, if we do not want to go back to violence, if we do not want people in Northern Ireland to go back to killing each other, and we do not, we must get them talking to each other. The Government are attempting to get them talking to each other.
What we are suggesting, through the amendments, is that we do not fall into the trap of having a dispute about voting levels—70 or 60 per cent.—that we work on the basis of consensus and, that where it is necessary for decisions to be taken, they are taken, as is clearly set out in the Command Paper, by a majority of representatives from the republican and Unionist communities.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. If the Anglo-Irish Agreement was such a wonderful thing, as he thinks it was, and was bringing us away from partition to paradise, why are we having this forum? We are told that the forum is to seek a way away from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to get—I quote—a "broader" agreement under which people can work. If the agreement was such a wonderful panacea for our ills, why should we want anything broader?

Mr. Soley: I do not want to rehearse whether the Anglo-Irish Agreement was wonderful. I do not claim that it was wonderful. I actually said that there was a change from a policy of crisis management to a policy whereby the British Government—Labour and Tory—have been prepared to work with the Irish Government in solving what is essentially a joint problem and in helping the two divided communities in Northern Ireland to come together in a political system that works. That is why we are here.
I know that Unionist members do not like that, but it is important to understand that, in my judgment, no British Government will ever go back to the old Stormont Government. They will never allow that to happen. If that is the case, unless the Unionists are prepared to live with


the idea of direct rule for ever, which is not exactly a desirable way of running Northern Ireland, we must come up with a workable solution in Northern Ireland.
A workable solution means compromise and talks between the Unionist and nationalist communities. The necessary structure is there, and the Government have today moved a considerable way towards it. I am urging the Secretary of State to move towards a more sophisticated version of it, despite the fact that I seem to be having a debate with the Unionist parties. Let us get rid of the voting aspect of the structure, which is divisive—even the Unionists are disputing the 70 per cent., 60 per cent. or 50 per cent. Figure—and proceed by consensus. Where that does not happen, we should proceed on the basis of the support of a majority of the representatives of nationalists and a majority of the representatives of the Unionists. That is the way forward, and I strongly recommend it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The fact is that the House said that it would do away with Stormont and it did so—I was here when it happened. I said that what had existed before was a Sunday school picnic and that we would now experience the real thing. The then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), said that I was speaking nonsense. He should look at what has happened since then: more people were killed in a week than were killed under 50 years of so-called Unionist misrule. Indeed, more people were killed in a few hours than were killed in the entire 50 years.
Parliament should consider what it has done in Northern Ireland. It says that it is working realistically, but was the Anglo-Irish Agreement brought about by consensus? It is ridiculous to hear in this place that the Anglo-Irish Agreement represents the first time that we escaped crisis management. In fact, it launched the greatest divide seen in Northern Ireland for many years. It polarised all parts of the community. Even the leader of the SDLP at the time said that the British Government must face down the Unionists. In other words, consensus means facing down the Unionists.
What of the fact that the great Anglo-Irish Agreement was found to be a complete failure? The Government then moved to the Downing street declaration, which also failed. It produced nothing. They then moved to the framework document and thought that the Unionists would sit down and negotiate themselves out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland. That failed, too. They then said that there would have to be all-party talks, but they failed. Finally, the Government turned back to the only thing to which a democracy can return—the granite rock of having an election and letting the people speak.
Some hon. Members do not like the fact that we are to have an election. They are going so to rig the elected body that it is not even to be allowed to prepare its own rules by the use of a vote. The first assembly voted on the rules; the second assembly voted on the rules; and the convention voted on the rules. I was on all those bodies and on every rules committee.
On important matters we could have a weighted majority. If people are afraid about some issue, I should be happy to say the measure will not be passed. If there

is great controversy, let us have a requirement for 75 per cent. approval. That is reasonable. I sit in the Strasbourg assembly where some votes involve a weighted majority. There is nothing undemocratic about those votes, but they relate to specific issues.
If hon. Members think that the elected representatives of Northern Ireland do not have enough wit to sit down and draw up a few rules and regulations, but that we need a long debate because those representatives are ignorant and must be guided by their parent's big cane and must be called into the back room by the Secretary of State, I have to tell them that that is not the way to work with people.
Parliament should let the Northern Ireland representatives draw up their own rules and get on with their business. For hon. Members to tell the people of Northern Ireland that they can have no votes but must reach consensus on everything is ridiculous and is no way to proceed. The House of Commons, which took it on itself to do away with the structures of government in Northern Ireland, has sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
Let us face it: there is to be an election. People will be elected, and they will have views. They will know the situation: they will have lived with it and suffered with it. Surely those people will know how to make progress, and how to draw up a few rules for the running of a forum. I do not see any great obstacle, and I am amazed that the Committee has spent so long discussing something that should not present an obstacle to anyone.

12 midnight

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) explained the nature of Northern Ireland society very well. It is a divided society, and, moreover, one in which large elements peacefully challenge the legitimacy of the very state itself, and its right to exist in its present form. We are trying to establish institutions that will reconcile the interests of those who look to Westminster for support and encouragement, and those who look to Dublin.
The problem is the lack of conviction in Northern Ireland society that legitimate ideas and aspirations—even from the foundation of the statelet—were being recognised by the Government and the institutions of the day. We as a society, and we as a House, are not working on the basis of a simple majority decision. We know what the result would be if there were simple majority decisions in Northern Ireland. That does not mean that the majority do not have rights and must be subservient to the minority, but it does mean that the rights and aspirations of the minority must also be recognised, and that the minority must not be overpowered by the majority.
In establishing the forum, we intended to create a body in which no one would feel under threat. People would be able to have their say on matters on which it was agreed that they should have a say, and would not feel that, under rules or procedures, they would be gagged or bullied or that decisions would be made that—even if they had no legislative, administrative or executive effect—nevertheless prejudiced their position. That is why Labour amendment No. 55—which I understand the Government may view sympathetically—is so important, although it is not the amendment that I would have tabled; I would have tabled an amendment more in line with the proposals of


my hon. Friends in the SDLP. I do not understand, and have yet to hear the Government explain coherently, why it is possible to refer to Command Paper 3232 in clause 2 but not in schedule 2.
The Labour amendment applies not only to the rules that will be drawn up by the forum as such but to the rules that the Secretary of State will introduce, under which the forum will first meet. It is therefore of the utmost importance for us to understand what "consensus" means in the amendment. Do the Government accept that, broadly, it is the same as the concept in paragraph 24 of the Command Paper? If so, we shall have framed regulations that will enable all the participants in the forum to express opinions without fear or favour and without the fear of bullying, and to know that the conclusions that result will be supported by the majority in each community. Such conclusions are likely to be accepted, carried through and supported by the whole community and not just by majorities in each section of it. That is the way to go forward.
We are not debating a British, Westminster situation. Everybody does not say, "Yes, we accept the rules of the game and the present nature of the state." It is a different situation altogether. I am worried by the suggestion that some rules may be changed by a majority of 75 per cent. voting for that. The reason for that concern is that if a grouping on either side—probably, although not necessarily, on the nationalist side—has sufficient numbers and decides, for whatever reason, to boycott the assembly, there will not be a block of 25 per cent. of the votes to prevent the evils that I spoke about earlier.
It may be argued that in such circumstances the Secretary of State, who must approve the rules, could veto it, but the damage would have been done, and we must seek to avoid that. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister of State will explain how the Secretary of State will draw up the rules. Will he start with a consensus rule similar to that in the White Paper with the same purpose, push and ideas as that advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith? If there is such a rule, we can have some confidence in the forum, which I have never regarded as being important. However, if it is to go ahead it should have fair rules which are properly drawn up and in which people can have confidence.
If people feel that in one way or another their position is likely to be abused in the forum, they are not likely to attend and we may end up in the situation that pertained in the earlier assembly. That would be the worst of all possible worlds.

Mr. Ancram: This has been a useful and full debate. I will take the Committee through the amendments and give the Government's view. Amendment No. 139 was moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and seeks to omit the last seven words from paragraph 3(1) of the schedule. That would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to approve the
rules of procedure determined by the members of the forum".
We all hope that, as far as possible, the forum should not only regulate its own procedure but should operate under a broad consensus. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made a powerful plea for the forum to operate in that way. Of course there are difficulties about making the right provision to enable that to happen. A balance has to be struck. For example, it would not be right to prescribe unanimity so that one member could derail proceedings.
Plainly, the rules of procedure will be important. The requirement for the approval of the Secretary of State for them is a valuable safeguard that should not be dispensed with. In the light of that, the Government cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 58 was from a different direction. As I have said, I have taken careful note of what has been said about the importance of the forum operating, if at all possible, on the basis of consensus and agreement between the parties that will constitute it. I gladly reiterate that we believe that that is the right principle and that the rules of procedure could have a significant role to play in helping the parties to work together to develop the dialogue and understanding that is part of the forum's purpose.
It is also clear, however, that the effectiveness of the rules in bringing about the right consensual spirit will depend on the parties' willingness to work together. To foster co-operation, it may not be right to lay down a highly formalised framework at the start. There could be a danger that rules that are viewed as too prescriptive could have the opposite effect of that intended, perhaps requiring parties to focus more on what divides them than on what they have in common. There is therefore a danger that, in specifying the need for particular majorities to enable the forum to determine its business, amendment No. 58 might build in an element of confrontation which could otherwise be avoided.
In that matter, I have considerable sympathy with the point made on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who said:
The rules of procedure … cannot be about majorities and minorities."—[Official Report, 18 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 928.]
He went on to say that they must be about the construction of dialogue, understanding and consensus throughout the communities.
I accept, of course, that the test that amendment No. 58 is seeking to import to the forum reflects that set out for the negotiations in the Command Paper. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that, earlier in these deliberations, I mentioned that phrases such as Unionist and nationalist do not necessarily have a legal status and that the application and interpretation of such phrases could cause all sorts of problems. The fact that the Bill refers to the Command Paper does not mean that it adopts everything in the paper as part of statute.
It is not certain anyway that what is appropriate for the negotiations, with their smaller numbers and ground rules, which have already been published, would be appropriate for the forum. It is worth reminding hon. Members that the ground rules make it clear that, although they set out the general area within which agreement, we hope, will be found:
The rules for establishing sufficient consensus will be agreed in advance of negotiations by the participants".
It is also worth recollecting that, even within those rules, there are different ways in which their purpose could be met. That must be a matter for discussion between the parties before they come to an agreement as to how, for instance, a qualification such as
a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities
might be measured within the negotiating process. It is important, therefore, that we do not feel that, because something may be appropriate in principle in one area, it


should be adopted lock, stock and barrel in another. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. Member for South Down, but I appreciate his point. We will reflect on how that might be dealt with in the rules of procedure.
The Bill already provides that, to be settled, the rules of procedure must be approved by a vote of 75 per cent. of those voting and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie would, in effect, place a duty on my right hon. and learned Friend, in exercising the functions of drawing up the initial rules and approving any subsequent set submitted by the forum, to make every effort to secure that the rules should facilitate the promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus throughout the communities in Northern Ireland.
In the light of our view that consensus in desirable in the working of the forum and that those other elements are already part of the forum's purpose—I am pleased to hear the clear importance that other hon. Members attach to those—in the interests of maximising the chances of all parties working together constructively in the forum, I am willing to accept the amendment and the duty that it carries.
Obviously, at this stage it is too early for me to say how exactly we shall discharge the duty or how the rules will, in the event, be framed to promote dialogue, understanding and consensus, but I can say that, in approaching the duty, we will take careful account of what has been said during the debate and aim to consult the parties not only on the extent and nature of the initial rules that we shall make, but on the provision that, in the parties' views, should be made in the rules to facilitate that promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus, therefore looking for the positive side of it, which should characterise both the forum and the negotiations.

Mr. Trimble: I find the Minister's decision to accept the amendment interesting, and possibly fruitful. As I understand it, in framing the initial rules that will operate before the forum draws up its own rules, the Secretary of State will be imposing upon himself a duty to facilitate understanding and consensus. Am I to take it from this that in drawing up those rules the Secretary of State has imposed upon himself a duty to consult and to seek agreement with the people who will be members of the forum? That will mark a significant change of approach in the way in which the Secretary of State has handled matters in connection with the Bill, and we welcome that.

Mr. Ancram: Obviously, if one is to set up procedures and rules that are to work on the basis of consensus, one wishes to carry with one those who will be operating them. That is why I repeat that it will be our aim to consult the parties not only on the extent and nature of the initial rules, but on the provision that should be made in the rules to facilitate the promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus. I repeat that, because in all our debates we have the negative and the positive. When talking about consensus, I am looking for positive contributions as well as contributions of concern.

Mr. McNamara: I am not trying to be clever, but what do the Government and the Minister define as consensus?

Mr. Ancram: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is not trying to be clever, but he is trying to pre-empt what, in the ground rules, is to be left for discussion with the parties. Essentially, if the hon. Gentleman looks again—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to hear the answer having asked the question; if he does, perhaps he will do me the courtesy of listening. In paragraph 24 of the ground rules, the hon. Gentleman will see that the parties will have to get together before the negotiations to agree on how that sufficiency of consensus will operate. It is right, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, that in looking for agreements the parties should be consulted and that we do not lay down hard and fast rules at this time.

Mr. Soley: I am grateful for the Minister's response generally, but can he tell me whether my suggestion that the forum should be able to take evidence will be considered? There are many groups from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland who have many useful things to say and enable people to cross the divide that has been so destructive in the past.

Mr. Ancram: I am sorry that I did not respond to that part of the hon. Gentleman's comments. In the debate on the previous set of amendments, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that he saw that as being a major purpose of the forum. We have looked closely at the lesson of certain elements of the forum in Dublin in terms of the valuable work that this forum will be able to do.
Amendment No. 56 focuses on paragraph 4(b) of schedule 2. It would require that a vote under that paragraph on the election or removal of a chairman and the approval or amendment of the rules of procedure should be reached not by 75 per cent. of those voting, as the Bill provides now, but once again in accordance with the procedure defined in paragraph 24 of the ground rules for negotiations. I hope that hon. Members will have heard what I have said about that and that they will accept that in the light of what I have said, particularly about amendment No. 55, the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 175 was tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). He was seeking to substitute the figure 60 for 75. No numerical test can be a guarantee of broad consensus unless it is set high. I think that there would be at least a good chance that approval by 75 per cent. of those voting could represent such a consensus. Obviously that cannot be said for a figure that is very much lower, as in the amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that we cannot accept it.
Amendment No. 66 concerns privilege in actions for defamation. The Bill will provide such privilege in respect of statements by forum members, but not where the allegedly defamatory statement is proved to have been made with malice. The amendment would protect such malicious statements with the rest.
We very carefully considered the question of privilege in relation to defamation. There is a strong argument that in a body such as the forum, which is concerned with dialogue and understanding, it is any way incumbent on


the participants to avoid potentially defamatory statements. After all, we are seeking to encourage constructive contributions aimed at the furtherance of agreement between the communities in Northern Ireland. I would hope, therefore, that conflictual language would be avoided.
That being so, it can be argued that any sort of privilege in defamation is out of place. On the other hand, it is true that a number of bodies have such immunity in the interests of members speaking freely. We saw some force in that argument in relation to the forum. It did not seem to us appropriate to grant the full range of privilege in respect of defamation that applies in this House. The forum has, after all, neither the oversight nor the legislative responsibilities that we have here.
The limited sort of privilege that we propose has analogies in local government. For the reasons that I have given, to do with the fact that the forum is the sort of body in which we believe members should anyway be especially on their guard against defamatory language, we do not believe that we should go further, and in particular, we do not think that we should be involved in protecting defamatory statements that are found to be malicious. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. William Ross: The House does not have very many thugs and murderers on its Benches, but I rather expect that we shall find a number of them in the assembly. Are we to he told that we are being defamatory if we draw attention to their history? In the light of that, the Minister should reconsider what has he has just said.

Mr. Ancram: From what the hon. Gentleman has said, I am not so optimistic as I was about the frame of mind with which he will enter the forum. The forum presents the opportunity for all parties to look constructively at how actively it can promote dialogue and understanding. What the hon. Gentleman has just said does not sound very consistent with that aim. I can only say that I hope that the absence of the protection for which the hon. Gentleman is looking might be an incentive for him to move in that direction.

Mr. Trimble: I am sorry that the stomach of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is of a rather delicate nature and not so robust as the Minister's in this matter. In this context the word "malice" is used with a special meaning. It does not mean malice as it is used in ordinary language. The amendment's objective is simply to give the opportunity for free speech to occur in the forum. Although we know that the forum is limited, its operations are more analogous to that of a convention, or the assembly that was operated between 1982 and 1985 when it had no powers. I think that those bodies had the protection and privilege that applies to such a deliberative body. It is simply a matter of free speech.

Mr. Ancram: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I did say that there were certain other precedents, and I can make them available to him if he wishes. Whatever construction one puts on the word "malice", I should have thought that it was not consistent with the purposes that we have set out for the forum, which I understood that he had also agreed. It is for that reason that we provide protection, but that protection is limited. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 8, line 18, at end insert—
'(4) In exercising his functions under sub-paragraphs (1) and (3) above, the Secretary of State shall make every effort to secure that the rules of procedure of the forum facilitate the promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus across the communities in Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Worthington.]

Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in page 8, line 30, leave out 'as he thinks appropriate' and insert
'as required by the forum for the proper exercise of its functions.'.
I can see that several hon. Members are beginning to get weary, so I shall not talk for long. There are several hours still to spend on Report, and a few more hours after that for Third Reading, so I do not want to delay the Committee unduly on the amendment. It is a probing amendment because, judging by the Secretary of State's amendment and the date given for the election, the forum will probably be sitting within two months.
Forum members will come together to deliberate on the issues in two months' time; yet we do not know where they will meet, or what services will be available. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether we shall be able to use the valuable services of someone experienced, such as Mr. John Kennedy, the clerk of the assembly? What staff will be made available? Will they be drawn from Maryfield, or perhaps Stormont? What is in the Secretary of State's mind? He has told us nothing about any of those questions, many of which will make a great deal of difference to the participants.
At an earlier stage, the Secretary of State—or possibly the Minister—suggested that the buildings at Stormont castle would be available, and said that he was looking for suggestions. Does the Northern Ireland Office not have alternatives that it is prepared to share with the Committee, even at this late stage? The harbour commissioners' building has been mentioned, and so has Queen's university. What options will the Secretary of State or the Minister offer for the venue and home of the new forum?
The Secretary of State has a definite time, a definite place and a definite purpose for the negotiating teams, but everything about the forum is vague. Perhaps that depicts graphically the way in which the Secretary of State deals with elected representatives—those who want to be based in a democratic society, as opposed to those whom he can cobble together in a corner and push in a particular direction, or perhaps allow them to push him.
I hope that when the Minister or the Secretary of State responds he will have some positive details to give the Committee, so that those who may be thinking of taking part in the elections will know what is planned for them.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has moved an important amendment. However, many of the questions that he asked were dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State earlier.

Mr. Robinson: When?

Mr. Ancram: When he made it clear that the castle buildings were there and available. However, in terms of


the sort of service that people want the forum to perform, those buildings may be regarded as inadequate, in which case we want to hear representations on the subject.
We fully intend that the forum should enjoy facilities appropriate to the proper exercise of its functions. We have discussed several of those functions this evening, and we are giving much thought to precisely what they should be. Opinions vary on what would be appropriate in the circumstances, and we have heard a number of other suggestions tonight.
The problem with the amendment is that it does not say who will decide what is appropriate for the proper exercise of the forum's functions. The matter cannot be left unspecified because my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to the House for the use of resources. Ultimately, the decision on what is appropriate must be left to him. Of course, he will be very willing to listen to the views of hon. Members.
I hope that in the consultations that we shall need to have on this there will not be serious disagreements. In view of the circumstances at this time, it would not be right to press the amendment and I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, East will seek leave to withdraw it. If he will not, I shall have to advise my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.-—[Sir Patrick Mayhew.]

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Despite the speed with which the Bill has been taken through House, it has been subjected to sustained and detailed scrutiny and has been improved as a result. I believe that that scrutiny has been well merited. I pay tribute to all those on both sides of the House who contributed to our debates in Committee. I cannot reflect upon unanimity, or even a broad consensus, on many of the issues that were raised, but I fully recognise that they were all motivated by a desire to improve the prospects for securing a long-term political settlement and, ultimately, peace in Northern Ireland. Of course, there are many differing views about how that should be achieved. Those who hold them feel strongly that their particular route forward is the right one. Given the importance of the matter for the lives and well-being of the people of Northern Ireland, they are right to feel strongly about it and to press their case as forcefully and effectively as they have.
However, the overall goal is shared and I hope that we can now leave behind any adversarial feelings that may have been engendered in Committee and look forward positively together to a renewal of the talks process through the complementary mechanisms of the negotiations and the forum—they are complementary—and the elections, which will be a prelude to both. The Bill is aptly entitled the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill. It provides a gateway. It is

intended to be a gateway and provides the only available gateway to those negotiations. I am grateful for the way in which matters have been addressed.

Mr. McNamara: I did not vote for the Bill and I have not voted in any of its proceedings. In many ways, I regard it as a facade introduced by a weak Government in an attempt to extend their life. It may take forward the peace process in Northern Ireland, but it is 18 months too late. The opportunities that were created by the ceasefires were wasted by the Government.
I hope that it will be possible for the talks to go forward on the suggested date, 10 June. I hope that innumerable fresh hurdles will not be raised to postpone decisions or to prevent matters from being discussed. I hope that, bearing in mind what we have heard during the proceedings on the Bill and some of the matters raised in the White Paper, there will not be one insuperable obstacle at the start which will prevent any other matters from being discussed because if that happens, we shall be right back to where we were before the legislation was introduced.

Mr. Wilshire: I echo the thanks to all concerned. On Second Reading, I welcomed the principle of holding elections because elections let the people decide who speaks for them and will provide the democratic mandate for the various parties. I also said that there was much in the detail of the Bill that we should worry about and that significant changes in detail were needed. A number of amendments were tabled, some of which were technical and some of which dealt with fundamental issues. In the event, the past two days have not turned out as I and, I suspect, some others, hoped. Some of the technical amendments have been accepted and I am sure that everyone welcomes that. I welcome the fact that almost all the deliberations have been conducted in good humour and have been constructive.
However, I regret to have to say at the end of these two days that absolutely nothing of real substance has been changed by our deliberations. Every attempt to ensure that the new ceasefire, which is agreed to be essential, is declared permanent has been rejected. Every attempt to get the requirement to "address" Mitchell turned into a requirement to sign up to it has been rejected and every attempt to limit Dublin to a proper relationship between two sovereign Governments has been rejected. On a number of other important matters, no progress has been made.
Although I still remain keen to see the elections take place and I welcome them, I regret having to say at the end of our consideration of the Bill that the door still remains wide open to more concessions to Dublin, more appeasement of Sinn Fein-IRA and more neglect of the Unionist majority. Elections are real progress, but the Government's stance is as depressing as ever.

Dr. Hendron: I was pleased that the Secretary of State and his Minister placed much emphasis on the importance of the all-party talks rather than that of the forum. In making that point, I do not in any way belittle the points made by others about the forum. I fully understand why


the forum is wanted. My party has felt from the beginning that it was not necessary, but it will be a fact of life, so there is no point in going backwards.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that some stomachs would be turned among those people who went into the forum because gunmen or former gunmen would be there. The whole point of all-party talks and the political process is to take the gun out of Irish politics permanently. It is not just the turning of stomachs but the slaughter of our people that has taken place over so many years.
The Secretary of State emphasised the fact that the functions of the forum would be deliberative. I have been present for most of the debate today and yesterday and, as I understand it, no amendments which were intended to upgrade the forum or make it more significant were accepted.
From my party's point of view, the big date is 10 June for the all-party talks. The Mitchell principles—which have been mentioned over and over again—are not preconditions; they are to do with democracy. I agree with the hon. Members who have said that anyone who really intends to make this process work should have no difficulty in accepting the Mitchell principles because they are about democracy.
My party will enter into the talks on 10 June in good faith. We are aware, as is every hon. Member, that we are divided by history. As a nationalist, I emphasise the fact that some people believe—I am thinking mainly of Irish Americans—that the Protestant Unionist people are blow-ins of the last century. However, they have been here in this country—at least in Ireland—longer than the white star of the United States of America has been there. Obviously, I could develop that point at great length.
Reference has been made to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and questions asked as to whether it worked. The exercise that we are now going through is leading to all-party talks and, hopefully, the promise will be fulfilled. We are replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement with another agreement—a broad agreement between the two communities. As one who participated in, totally supported and still supports, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I have no difficulty in saying that there was no consultation with the representatives of the Unionist people. That was wrong.
To say that the agreement did not work is untrue. The agreement was to do with equality between two communities, between two traditions. If one reads the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the various aspects of it and looks at what has happened, one cannot blame those who brought forward the agreement for the terrible violence that took place on our streets. When two Governments form an agreement, paramilitary people do not say, "That is the answer—we will now lay down our guns". That is absolute nonsense. One cannot say that the agreement did not work.
I conclude on a point that I have raised with the Secretary of State in the past. Yesterday the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) referred to young people getting their names on the register. I do not see that as a major problem. However, what is a problem is the fact that thousands of votes are stolen in every election in Northern Ireland. The votes are stolen mainly by one political group: Sinn Fein. Some years ago, the stealing of votes was an elementary thing, but now it is done professionally.
Driver's licences and medical cards are not proof of identity, and I made this point to the Secretary of State some weeks ago. Today, in the Irish Independent, a newspaper published in Dublin, there is a column on the fact that driver's licences are being produced in Dublin by some renegade organisation and being sold at quite a considerable profit. It is very easy to produce these documents. Any hon. Member could use another hon. Member's medical card as a means of identity—it does not prove identity at all. I have seen many medical cards—as I am a member of the medical profession, it is something that I know about.
In my constituency of Belfast, West personating agents—including people representing me or my colleagues or representatives of any other party—are not allowed to look at documents. When someone presents a document—be it a medical card or a driver's licence—we do not have the authority to look at it. If I am a candidate, I do not have the power to see whether it is a genuine medical card.
I am talking about people voting not once or twice, but 10 or 20 times from 7 am until 10 pm. I appeal to the Secretary of State—as I have done before; and I appreciate that efforts have been made in the past—on this issue. I hope that I am not being arrogant in making the point that medical cards and driver's licences came about over the years through steps taken by me in approaching the Government. I need not go into all that, but that point can be proven without difficulty.
I ask for something to be done between now and the election. One system uses what I believe is an ultra-violet light, under which the voter places a hand. Although that system does not identify the person, it ensures that the person votes only once. I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker. that, in my territory, even if the wrong person votes, the fact that they vote only once means something.
I am sorry for taking up so much time. As I said, we shall enter the all-party talks in good faith. My party will not take a decision for a little while. I leave that issue to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady).

Mr. Peter Robinson: Hon. Members might want to keep in mind the fact that the gangsters referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) are the type of gangsters that the Secretary of State has been falling over backwards to involve in the talks process. Those are the people who organise the young fellows to impersonate voters to steal people's votes. The House apparently believes that it is productive to involve such people in the talks process. Those are the people whom the Secretary of State attempts to accommodate and the Government want to elevate.
Now that the House has heard the mild views of the hon. Member for Belfast, West—Madam Deputy Speaker, if he had the time, he could have described to you much more of his experience of what he has to face in west Belfast from that so-called party—we need to concern ourselves with the nature of the Bill as a whole.
Disappointingly—but not surprisingly—the Secretary of State, having given the House a clear undertaking that he would go away and consult and having said that, on that basis, parties should withdraw amendments that they had tabled relating to the list because on Report he would


report his conclusions to the House, did nothing of the sort. Even on this Third Reading, he has done nothing of the sort.
It shows how much trust we can have in the Secretary of State when, in the space of a few hours, he makes a commitment to the House, breaches that commitment and does not follow it through. What faith can we or anyone in Northern Ireland have in a Secretary of State who makes such a commitment and breaks it in so cavalier a fashion?
Of course, we have no doubt about what the conclusion is, because the Secretary of State had the decency to whisper it to us. He does not allow the Democratic Unionist party to be on the ballot paper in the manner that the Democratic Unionist party chooses. One political party may have its leader specified on the ballot paper, but not this political party, because the Secretary of State wants to discriminate against it.
There are laws in Northern Ireland about discrimination and about the behaviour of a Minister, and the House may not have the last word on all those issues. It certainly will not have the last word on one issue at least, because the people of Northern Ireland will have the last word.
I look forward to the day when the Secretary of State visits my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim or me and says, "If you would be prepared to change one wee word in this document, it would be very helpful" and I will remind the Secretary of State how helpful he was today when we wanted one wee word changed in a document and he was not prepared to budge. He made no attempt to reach a consensus or to bring parties along with him.
I want to place it clearly on the record that we satisfied the requirements that the Government specified in exactly the same way as the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) did, and that we will fulfil our obligations in exactly the same way as he did. The Minister made it clear that, because the hon. and learned Gentleman had responded in the way that he had, his party's name and his Christian name and surname were put on the list in the way that he required. Different criteria apply to the hon. and learned Member for North Down and to my party. The Government have treated the democratic parties shabbily by not allowing them to describe themselves on the list in the manner that suits them.
In the past 36 hours, we have attempted to inject some degree of democracy into flawed legislation. We attempted to introduce some democracy into the work of the forum, whose role the Secretary of State intends to diminish. We attempted to increase the responsibility of its representatives and their role vis á vis the negotiating teams. However, our every attempt was rejected by the Secretary of State. Let us be honest: he was prepared to accept only those minor amendments that did little more than change the punctuation in the Bill. He turned down all amendments of any substance.
The strength of the arguments was of no consequence because the Bill was agreed beforehand. Minor alterations could be made so long as they did not affect the agreement that allowed the Bill to be brought before the House. With whom did the Secretary of State agree the contents of the Bill? Everyone knows that he agreed the

process with Dublin from the communiqué on. No doubt it was Dublin that would not allow the name of the Democratic Unionist party to be changed—everything that the Secretary of State does must meet with the approval of Dublin.
It is a disgrace that the Government of the United Kingdom must toady to the demands of the IRA, by providing it with the date of the commencement of talks and the contents of the Command Paper, and to the demands of Dublin, by agreeing the wording of the Bill. The Government will derive little credit from the way in which they have conducted the proceedings of the House in the past few hours. There will be regret in Northern Ireland that the Government have decided to bulldoze the Bill through the House without making any changes that are meaningful to the people of Northern Ireland. Ultimately, the people will decide. Although the Secretary of State may manipulate the Bill on the basis of his dealings with Dublin, he will not be able to manipulate the will of the people of Northern Ireland.

Ms Mowlam: The Bill, which we support this morning, has the chance to set in train events that offer the first real hope of meaningful all-party negotiations since the IRA ceasefire in August 1994. Tragically, that ceasefire is no longer in place—it was broken on 9 February by a wanton act of violence which threatened to tear the peace process apart.
With the Bill, the House has shown that we will not be diverted from the path of peace by such acts. With talks in sight and a clear route to the table marked out, there is no excuse for the IRA not to restore its ceasefire. We support those who have worked so hard since 9 February to ensure that the ceasefire is retained among loyalist groups. That work must continue.
Elections will be held on 30 May and talks will start on 10 June—after that, the route is much less clear. The issue of decommissioning paramilitary weapons will have to be addressed in line with the communiqué of 28 February and the Mitchell report. That is a crucial part of building the trust and confidence—which clearly have some way to go—that have been sought throughout the peace process. Also crucial to building that trust and confidence, as the ground rules document says, is the need for all parties to be assured that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiations is genuinely being offered. To that effect, we fully support the two Governments in strongly commending the joint framework document as the basis for negotiations.
During the passage of the Bill, the Secretary of State has accepted a number of amendments from hon. Members on both sides of the House. We welcome in particular the amendments that addressed the question of the forum's procedures and dealt with the relationship between the forum and the negotiations, and their timing. We believe that that provides crucial reassurances to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State's acceptance of our amendment No. 55 should provide important assurances for both communities, especially the nationalist community, that their views will not be overridden, but that the focus and culture of the forum will be to seek consensus across the communities. Word to that effect will now be in the Bill, thanks to our amendment. We are grateful to the Secretary


of State and to the Minister for offering reassurances on those points and on how consultations with the different parties on the rules of procedure will continue, based on consensus, dialogue and understanding.
The passage of the Bill in the past two days has been at times chaotic and confusing. It may not be the best legislation that the House has produced, but in terms of the time constraints, it is the best that we have managed. We wish to add our thanks to those who have serviced the House during the past 36 hours when we have sat so late. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was not able to be with us. We have missed his contribution and wish him a speedy recovery.
We believe that the Bill will bring about change. It will provide an unprecedented opportunity for the parties to negotiate a new future for the people of Northern Ireland, of the island of Ireland and of these islands.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to make some remarks on the Bill and how it came to be put before us. We remember that the Prime Minister made it clear from the Dispatch Box that a door to proper negotiations should be opened. Negotiations had been going on behind closed doors, mainly with those who were responsible for bombing, killing and other atrocities. The general public never knew what happened behind those closed doors—what deals were brokered or what promises and assurances were given.
We saw those who were closely associated with vicious acts of terrorism and murder being given offices in the Stormont complex. Their leaders had separate offices and facilities and the members had separate offices and facilities, including members of IRA-Sinn Fein, who have never denounced any act of violence and whose leader refused to condemn, even slightly, the Canary wharf bomb. That leader was installed in the Stormont complex, with his name on the door as president of Sinn Fein and paid for by taxpayers' money.
I resent what was said from the Opposition Front Bench earlier, calling the loyalist groups Protestant gunmen. They are not Protestant gunmen; they are so-called loyalist gunmen. If I talked about the Roman Catholic IRA in the House, I would be shouted at from all quarters, but the Opposition are quite prepared to take the name of Protestantism and use it as a label.

Ms Mowlam: I did not.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Your deputy did that today at the Dispatch Box. That is a very serious matter as far as I am concerned. If one body can be described in one way, others should be able to describe other bodies in a similar way. I remember that when I was a young Member of the House, 20 years ago, I tried to table a motion that mentioned the Roman Catholic IRA. The Clerk told me that he could not accept that, so I took in a motion that Mr. Fitt had tabled that mentioned the Protestant UVF. I asked the Clerk about that and he said that he would have to see Mr. Fitt and get it changed.
The House must realise that it should be fair and even-handed to all parties in the dispute. Of course, even this debate has not been even-handed. The Prime Minister came to the House and said that we will have an election. Of course, that was bitterly and scurrilously opposed by

Dick Spring and his ilk in Dublin, who said all manner of things about elections, as if the people of Northern Ireland were not fit to have an election. We were told that an election would only exacerbate the situation, that it would divide the community and that we could not reach a consensus. What happened? The Prime Minister persisted with the idea that we should have an election.
As I have said, on 24 January the Prime Minister intimated to the House, in reply to the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, that he would call for the election. The leader of the Liberal party, the Leader of the official Opposition and other leaders went with him on the proposal. The Prime Minister said:
As for the election and the purposes for which it could be used, I see it being used to determine which parties would participate in the talks, and to give each party with elected representation a fresh electoral mandate—testing the extent of its democratic support in current circumstances. I see the election providing a pool of representatives from which party delegations to the talks could be drawn, and a means to index the strength of the parties' delegations in the talks process.
He went on:
Apart from that, of course"—
those were his words—
I see the election providing, by weighted majority vote, an initial mechanism for testing widespread acceptability within Northern Ireland of the outcome of any talks process."—[Official Report, 24 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 357.]
That particular proposition was vigorously attacked in the House and amendments were tabled to try to bring about what the Prime Minister promised the people of Northern Ireland at the Dispatch Box would be the result of the election. Those amendments were rejected by the Government whom he leads.
As I have already pointed out, the Prime Minister made another statement to the House on 21 March. He said:
The legislation will also provide"—
I stress, "provide"—
for the forum to be able to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies or individuals can be made."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 498.]
There is no such provision. I ask the Government to show me one line of a firm provision. In fact, the Government say that they can do it, but there is no legislative power for them to do it. If that is challenged by those in the forum who do not like the forum and want to have it destroyed, what will the Government do?
A provision should have been written into the Bill giving the forum the power to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies or individuals could be made. But those two things went by the board. Why? Because of the power of a foreign Government, the Government of the Irish Republic, who leant on the Government and said, "No, you can't do these things." Nor can they when the Dublin Government take it into their head that such things cannot be done.
We have heard great praise of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I was amazed by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who told us that it was a success. If the Anglo-Irish Agreement brought about what everyone seems to want and was a success, why are we here? But it did not bring that about. It could not bring it about. Now it is said that we need a wider agreement. Why, if it was a success?
That agreement was supposed to be the basis of a success. The two Governments would, for the first time, sit round the table, there would be no megaphone diplomacy, they would have a love-in every month and all would go well. But it did not. Then the Government said that they must do something more and we had talks. Those talks came to an end. Who brought them to an end? The Unionists? No. The other representatives from Northern Ireland? No. The southern Government brought them to an end. The southern Government agreed that there would be no Anglo-Irish conference while those talks were going.
On two occasions, the Irish Government decided that they would bring the talks to an end. Why? Because they were not comfortable at those talks. What were they not comfortable about? They were not comfortable about articles 2 and 3 which, at the beginning of the talks, they told us they would address—the same word that has been used before—in such a way that the Unionists would be amazed at how far they would go. They said that their generosity would amaze us. When the matter was first raised at the talks, the representatives of the Dublin Government told us that the best day's work that De Valera ever did was to write articles 2 and 3 into the constitution of the Irish Republic and that they would not budge an inch. Some Unionists—not of my party—went to Dublin to see whether it would help to talk there. When they returned, I asked Sir Ninian Stephen what happened. He said that they got nothing officially or unofficially. I see the leader of the UUP—the party involved—nodding his head. Nothing was gained.
Articles 2 and 3 lay claim to Northern Ireland. They not only lay claim to Northern Ireland but are now buttressed by a finding in the Irish High Court that they are a constitutional imperative for every Minister who takes office in the south of Ireland. Thus, claiming our territory is their objective.
When one of the member states takes on the presidency of the European Union, it is a custom for that member state to play host to all the ambassadors in its capital cities. Some time ago, the United Kingdom held that presidency and the procedure started. A meeting was held in London which all the ambassadors, including the Irish ambassador, attended. There were then meetings in Edinburgh and Cardiff, and the same happened.
Then there was a meeting in Belfast at Hillsborough house. When we arrived, I asked whether all the ambassadors were there. I was told that they were not. The Irish ambassador had said that it was highly insulting for the British to have a meeting in Northern Ireland, because the only people who could really invite ambassadors from other EU countries would be the Irish ambassador and the Irish authorities. The Irish therefore boycotted the meeting. That is why, when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, the Irish Government did not sign the same document but had to have a special one—an agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom with no mention of Great Britain or Northern Ireland. Why was that? It was because of articles 2 and 3.
The Berlin wall in my country is made of articles 2 and 3, built and buttressed by the Dublin authorities. It is illegal. It is a long time since we heard it said at the Dispatch Box that it was illegal, but one Minister did say it.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is straying from the purpose of Third Reading which, I remind him, is to discuss the contents of the Bill.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Bill concerns the future of Northern Ireland as directed by the two Governments. I am dealing with one Government who originated the sort of legislation that we are debating. I am trying to highlight the motivation of that Government. Surely I am entitled so to do when that Government have set themselves against the very basis of the status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom.
I am trying to point out that the Bill has on it the shadow of the Irish Republic—not only its shadow but its marks and diktats. It aims to further the interests of the Irish Republic, to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and put it under Dublin rule. That is clear from every step that has been taken in the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing street declaration and the framework document. As anyone who has read the framework document will see, there is only one option in it—to go down the road to Dublin.
Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution are repugnant to us. They are illegal, as Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box—although they do not like to be reminded of that. Not only are they illegal; they are immoral and criminal. The IRA, and all republican terrorists, have hidden behind the place of refuge provided by those articles. They have killed people, and then said that they are political killers.
Today and yesterday, attempts were made here to destroy the forum. The Prime Minister told us that it would be very important: he told us that it would not only supply the negotiators but serve as an initial mechanism to test what they were doing. Speaker after speaker has said that the negotiations are all-important. Why must they start on 10 June? Why is the forum to meet a month, or more than a month, after its election? The IRA has set no date for the forum, but the IRA and the Dublin Government certainly set a date for the negotiations to start. They are to start on 10 June: that is the date that we are working towards.
That is why we are here at such a late hour. That is why we have we have debated the Bill for so many hours, but so quickly. We are aiming for a deadline that was set by IRA-Sinn Fein. We do not know whether IRA-Sinn Fein will sign up to the principles, but Mr. Adams told the people of Northern Ireland last weekend that even if its members were not permitted to go they would be there, because they had a mandate. They would ensure that a republican consensus—he used the word "consensus" too—would be the agenda, and he would also ensure the ending of British rule in Northern Ireland.
It is not Members of Parliament who keep us in the United Kingdom. Some of the treatment that we have received in the House of Commons has been nauseating. We are members of the United Kingdom because of our birth and heritage, and our heartfelt loyalty to the


principles of democracy as upheld in the history of our nation and the House of Commons, not as a result of any outside force.
Many of my political opponents in the House, with whom I have had great differences, have at least stood up and said, "Let us have a bit of fairness, " but the Government could not be fair. Of course it was all right to give in to the SDLP, because Dublin would be happy about that. In fact, I am glad that that happened: the SDLP had a right to ask for the initial letters of its name to be included. It should not have had to argue.
The Minister said at the outset that he recognised the existence of strong feeling and would give in to it, but when I asked him to say the same in regard to an amendment, he would not. He would not put it to us. Why not? I am a democrat. There are some aspects of democracy that we do not like, but must accept. I would have accepted that amendment, but it was not put to us. It is not on the record of the House that the Secretary of State met the other party leaders. We do not know what the other party leaders said to him. They have not harmed me or my party, but the people of Northern Ireland are already enraged. They say, "Of course, there is always a bias, but it is for nationalism and for Roman Catholics. When it comes to Ulster Protestantism, they will make sure that it will be discriminated against. We have been feeling it." That is the reaction that the Government have brought on themselves.
The Minister with responsibility for political affairs may laugh as much as he likes, but it will be no laughing matter when he returns to Northern Ireland to fulfil some of his engagements and is faced with what he did today in the House. Let us at least have fair play. Justice was not seen to be done today, and well the Minister and every right-thinking hon. Member knows it. Ulster will know it; the election will be set on fire by this very issue and the Government will be responsible for kindling that fire.
The Government have not heard the end of the matter. They can get out of this by at least granting in another place what should be given. What are we asking for? We are asking that any party can put what it likes in its description. One of the parties already has the name of its leader on the paper. Why cannot I as the leader of my party or any other leader put our name on the paper? That is not a big demand, but of course it will not be granted because of the Ulster Democratic party's strength of feeling against this whole conspiracy to sell our Province out to Dublin.
One of the strongest condemnations of the Bill came from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) who said that here we have Dublin's hand and the power and the voice of Dublin, and that his Government were prepared to heed that voice. Let it be. The people of Northern Ireland will have their election. In spite of all the opposition they will cast their votes, but I see little hope of the Government even listening to that election voice because, as a former Northern Ireland Minister told us, "It does not matter how you vote; we will not pay heed to your vote anyway." But the vote of the people will be decisive and its impact will result in a turning of the tide at last in our Province that has seen all the tragedy, all the agony, all the bloodletting, and all the tears and sorrows of the past years. I trust that the Government will think again and at least do what is right and honourable towards my party.

Mr. David Trimble: Over the past couple of days we have spent about 19 hours in Committee considering the Bill. That is a reasonable period of time, but it is not excessive for the matters that are in the Bill. The record of the names of those who have spoken and for how long will show that in most of the debates the longest contributions were made by Government Front-Bench spokesmen, which is as it should be because the object of the exercise is to probe the Government's position, and that is what hon. Members from various parties have done over these two days.
I think that I am also correct in saying that in Committee the Government made some seven or eight concessions in terms of accepting Opposition amendments, in addition to a couple of Government amendments. In the circumstances, that is probably more than par for the course. It is fair to observe, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) observed, that most of those amendments are comparatively minor. Some of them are a bit more substantial, but perhaps more important than the amendments is the fact that we have had the opportunity to probe some of the more obscure passages in the Bill and have had some Government undertakings about its operation, which I hope will be helpful.
None the less, we send from the House a deeply flawed Bill. It is flawed partly through the unwise decision to depart from normal electoral practice and to adopt a novel procedure, and partly through the difficulties that have flowed from that, which have been reflected in the speech that we have just heard.
The Bill is also flawed in that, for political reasons, unadvisedly, in its drafting and presentation, there has been a concerted effort to overemphasise one of the two tracks. That is a misjudgment on the part of the people who have advised that action. I realise that Ministers are not free agents in the matter. They are constrained by the agreements that have been mentioned in the earlier speeches and by the realities of the forces that are acting on them, both outside and inside the Chamber. The balance, however, has not been a wise one: it has not been struck in the right place.
Looking forward to the Bill's operation in May and June, the job that lies before the parties in Northern Ireland is to make an effort to overcome the flaws in this process. Whether we can succeed remains to be seen, but we will endeavour to do that. We will, however, have to overcome some of the obstacles. I hope that, in our efforts to do so, there will be a ready response from other parties in Northern Ireland.
Some of the deepest flaws are in the so-called ground rules. I noticed the virtual quotation that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) used in her speech when she referred to the need to assure people that there would be a genuine negotiations process on matters of concern to them—which I believe is a rough paraphrase of paragraph 13 of the ground rules paper. I know that, in making that comment, the hon. Lady had her mind focused on the concerns and interests of nationalists, as has been her practice in the past two days. I find that statement in the ground rules deeply ironic from my point of view, and from that of the Unionists—not just my colleagues on this Bench, but elsewhere.
One of the most striking features of the ground rules is a determined effort, primarily by the Government, to exclude us—by which I mean all the Northern Ireland parties—from any negotiations on an issue which for us, the Unionists, is the primary concern in the operation: to replace the flawed instruments of Government under which we suffer and, primarily, to replace the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Government appear determined to exclude us from that negotiation. That runs counter to the clear statement in the ground rules that the Governments must give the parties concerned an assurance that a genuine process of negotiation has been offered. I look forward, when the time comes, to the Government making the necessary adjustments in their approach to give us a genuine opportunity to discuss the issues.
None the less, the elections will, I trust, take place—if matters go as we expect they will in another place. The two bodies will meet, unfortunately not in the right order, but we will overcome the difficulties that that will cause us. In those bodies, if the parties concerned take their places, as I hope that they will, all the people who have been elected to the forum will have their mandate willingly recognised, especially those who have a genuine mandate. The 20 extra members who have got there despite the operation of the electoral system will have to put up with getting reminders from time to time of the absence of any democratic basis for their presence, but we will tolerate them as well. I hope, however, that the parties will enter into both aspects of the process, because the two relate to each other, and that they will do so in a positive way.
The opportunity exists here for us to carry the process forward—to use the cliché again. We are looking forward to the opportunity to construct new institutions of government and to provide for a more secure future on a better democratic basis than we have had in the past. The opportunity exists to meet the needs of the people of Northern Ireland and to give them the future that they deserve.
When complaining about some aspects of the Bill, the hon. Member for Belfast, East said that the people of Northern Ireland will have the last word. I think that they will also have the first word. They will speak before others. On 30 May, the people of Northern Ireland will speak and, before any negotiations begin or any debates occur, we shall have heard their voice. I know that that voice will indicate clearly for what there is or is not consent. That will provide a basis on which we can proceed.
There is another aspect of the election that I would like to leave with hon. Members. The assumption exists in a number of quarters that any votes cast in the future will be on predictable lines. I hope that that is not so, because through the electoral process the opportunity exists for the people of Northern Ireland to send a message to all those involved in politics. We have talked about how the forum can be a way in which the public can be involved and so, more directly, can the elections. The opportunity is there for the people of Northern Ireland to send a message.
It has been a commonplace statement during the past 18 months that the people of Northern Ireland have welcomed the relative absence of violence and that they want to see real peace restored. On 30 May, the

opportunity will exist for the people to send a message about that and to show by the way in which they vote that they are turning their back on those who have endorsed and tolerated violence and that they are going to support those constitutional parties that are prepared to carry the process forward, if necessary without those who cannot give the necessary commitments about peace and non-violence which will be required at the outset. That is the opportunity for all of us in Northern Ireland and I hope that on 30 May that opportunity will be taken and that we shall have a sound foundation on which to proceed.

Mr. McGrady: I do not intend to delay the House for long at this late hour, but when listening to the contributions to the debate one can only be struck by the fact that the genesis of the reasons for the legislation seems to have been lost entirely. The title of the Bill brings us back to reality—Northern Ireland's entry to negotiations.
It was the inability of certain parties in Northern Ireland to enter into negotiations during 18 months of peace that has precipitated the legislation. During those 18 months, which some have called the wasted months in Northern Ireland, no negotiation or movement of any nature took place. There were two main reasons for that. The first was Sinn Fein's ambivalent attitude to violence and its refusal to issue a firm condemnation of the use and pursuit of violence for political purposes. Secondly, the preconditions of the two Unionist parties included a requirement for a renewal of their elected mandate and a forum.
One can forgive a party for wanting reassurance about its position and strength within our community, but we have had 21 elections in 20 years and, with a variation of 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. in any direction, any of us in the House could predict the strength of the mandate that we shall receive, hopefully on 10 June if we all participate in the elections. So it was not a real requirement, and from where we stood it was a blocking mechanism.
Within four hours of the Mitchell report being announced, before anyone had time to consider the implications, before Sinn Fein particularly, to whom it was addressed, could digest and perhaps make a more positive response, it was announced in the House that elections would take place. That entirely diverted attention away from the Mitchell requirements regarding the abjuring of violence and towards the election process, letting Sinn Fein, the loyalist paramilitaries and others off the hook.
Members of my party and I were opposed to elections not because we are opposed to elections—we have fought them all. And we were against a forum not because we oppose a forum to which people can make submissions of their attitudes and aspirations. We were against elections and a forum because they were simply delaying tactics. Legislation for elections and a forum is not a prerequisite to negotiations, but it is now deemed to be and is treated as such. Fair enough—that is where we are at. We feared and still fear—the atmosphere tonight in the House does not in any way allay our fears—that the election process will exacerbate the differences and push people into manifesto stances that will make it more difficult for all of us to arrive at consensus in the negotiations on 10 June.
The Bill is certainly flawed in many respects. Our amendments had one main theme: to try to ensure that, whatever mechanisms were used, both the negotiations and the forum were based on the broadest possible consensus, which is stated, as I have said several times, in paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232. That is the only way in which we can resolve the problem.
We seem to have forgotten what the problem is. It is the constant recurrence of violence over decades and centuries in our community. People are taking guns and explosives to try to resolve political problems. That is what negotiations are about. They are not about who wins elections or thumping one's chest and saying, "I did better than the other fellow; I got two more points in an election." Some of the arguments put today were party ego trips about who would do best at the election. That result will make no difference to whether we can resolve the problems of violence and form institutions that will copper fasten an agreed peace and remove violence and the gun from Irish politics from here on. That is the only objective that my party has had in all the proceedings.
If we could sacrifice our political existence for that objective to come about, we would do it willingly in the morning and retire to whatever alternative occupations we might be able to pick up. We are not looking for political advantage. We will certainly strive to get the maximum support, because in that way we can illustrate the support for the consensus politics that we are trying to promote and have tried to promote in the 25 years since the party was formed. All that we are about is getting to the negotiating table.
The ramifications and controversy of the past couple of days have been merely to enable us to get to a conference which, at the end of the day, will not take real cognisance of whether parties got 50 per cent. or 5 per cent. at the election. Negotiators will be representing a viewpoint. If the Bill's intention is in some way to insinuate that a weight of voting can impose a solution on a divided community without the reasonable consensus of the majority and the minority, we are all indulging in a pipe dream. That is what I fear may be happening with the diversion that appears to be taking place, as we forecast it would, because of the acquiescence in the idea that an election and a forum are needed in order to achieve the negotiations. Although the two arrangements will now run parallel, they are not necessarily—and need not necessarily have been—complementary.
All that I can say on behalf of my party is that presumably the Bill will pass into law—good or bad, warts and all, as we say at home. We shall try to ensure

that the best possible environment is created to allow the negotiations to start and to evolve in a meaningful way towards the final resolution of the endemic violence, and towards the institutions on which I hope that we can agree, which will copper-fasten the continuance of the peace for which both communities yearn so much, and for which they have suffered so much over many years—not only for the past 25 years, but for generation after generation. My wish and my hope is that our generation can put a stop to that suffering.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That Mr. Patrick McLoughlin be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Richard Ottaway be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

PETITION

Sea Empress

Mr. Nick Ainger: I wish to present to the House tonight a petition signed by more than 25,000 people, calling for an independent inquiry into the grounding of the Sea Empress, the oil pollution that resulted from it, and related matters.
The petition says:
the people of west Wales and the United Kingdom are outraged that over 65,000 tonnes of crude oil was allowed to spill from the Sea Empress from Monday 19 February 1996 causing massive pollution, the death of thousands of seabirds, the destruction of important habitats within the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and surrounding sites of world importance, causing serious problems for the tourist and fishing industries in Wales.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House calls on the government to ensure full support to those who have suffered consequential loss and immediately initiate an independent and wide-ranging inquiry into the events leading up to the grounding of the Sea Empress on Thursday 15 February 1996, the subsequent salvage operation, the safety of operations in the port of Milford Haven, the full implementation of Lord Donaldson's recommendations following the Braer disaster in January 1993 and the effectiveness of existing salvage law; this inquiry to be ideally controlled by Lord Donaldson of Lymington.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Prisons (Northumberland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. A. J. Beith: Next to each other on what was a wartime airfield in my constituency are two prisons—Her Majesty's prison Acklington and Her Majesty's young offenders institution Castington. They are the northernmost outposts of the prison service, and their staff, who are valued members of our local community, deal with increasingly difficult and disruptive offenders.
Indeed, since the prisons were first built, both have increased the range of offenders they take beyond what was first suggested to the local community—a process that began when life sentence prisoners were placed at Acklington. Relations between both institutions and the community are generally very good, although there are inevitably anxieties from time to time. Both Acklington and Castington have been successful in achieving Prison Service targets.
The reason for this debate is the enormous anxiety among prison officers and other staff about the likely impact of the cuts that the governors are being forced to implement. They threaten not only to undo much of the good work that has been commended by the authorities but to jeopardise security, both directly and indirectly. Security will be endangered if there are not enough officers to patrol, supervise and search. It will be undermined if, because of cuts, prison activities that keep offenders occupied have to be cut back. The devil makes work for idle hands.
The background to the debate is the Government's decision to impose cuts of more than 13 per cent. across the board in the Prison Service over the next three years. That is astonishing from a Government who believe that they can find the additional money for a huge increase in the prison population in coming years as a matter of deliberate policy. It is also deplorable, because the Government can claim to have achieved some significant improvements in the prison system. However, the gains from new or improved facilities and the end of slopping out will be wasted under the cuts programme.
I want to consider in more detail the two institutions in my constituency and the way in which the cuts will affect them. The older of the two, Acklington, is a category C training prison with more than 600 prisoners. It was the subject of a recently published inspection report, although the inspection took place a year ago, and several critical points have been dealt with since then.
The inspection team commended many of the areas of work that are likely to be affected by cuts, such as education, employment training, physical education and the chaplaincy. Work to tackle drug addiction among prisoners was praised as a
triumph of staff enthusiasm over heavy odds",
that needed more officer time and training support.
However, the inspectors said:
that Acklington has avoided serious incident is a tribute to managers and staff because such large campus style prisons are notoriously difficult to manage".

That is a striking reminder of the high staffing needs imposed by the layout of the prison. There was concern that officers felt intimidated and were not able to prevent squalid conditions from being created by some prisoners. Higher levels of supervision were needed to prevent bullying among prisoners.
How will the cuts help to deal with those problems, create the more progressive regime for which the inspectors called, and build on the achievements? The cuts planned for Acklington are large, involving the loss of more than £600,000 from budgets over the next three years. If first indications are correct, more than 20 posts are likely to go, including discipline officers, two principal officers, seven senior officers, and a night patrol staff officer.
The entire complement of prison officers in the works section, and the whole health officer section, are expected to go. The health section officers staff the hospital and sick bay for both Acklington and Castington. All officers are to be withdrawn from catering, and there are cuts in chaplaincy and in instructional staff.
It is impossible to set those staffing losses against the background of the inspection report without concluding that the problems and difficulties will be made significantly worse. There will be fewer trained officers around to maintain and handle problems in the kitchen, where there is considerable potential for trouble. As one officer wrote to me:
The type of inmate that is now coming to prison does not reason like normal people, they abuse any trust given and are very quick to become aggressive and violent.
How on earth is health cover to be provided satisfactorily with the complete disbandment of the team of officers that provides it? It cannot all be managed by visiting doctors and officers on the wings. How much of a reduction will there be in workshop activity, education and probation work? It is clear to all who know Acklington that, with those cuts, it cannot be expected to maintain the good things mentioned in the inspector's report and deal with the points that called for improvement.
Castington is a young offenders' institution that deals with many extremely difficult and violent offenders, including a significant number of serious sex offenders, for whom it is a national resource. Its work has been praised in the service for security, cleanliness, control, staff-inmate relationship and excellent results in the drug-testing programme. Area management seems to be of the view that efficiency savings had been made, and that present staffing levels were necessary to maintain the regime.
Even at present staffing levels, it has proved impossible to maintain normal levels of evening association. There were insufficient staff to maintain association for five nights a week. Even before the latest cuts, inmates were locked in their cells on three evenings a week, which is more than elsewhere in the prison system. Castington is being required to take cuts of around 15 per cent. over three years, including a cut of £202,000 this year. That is well above the figure that was originally suggested. The likely consequences are frightening.
A reduction in fence and ground patrols at nights and weekends would be a direct threat to security. The evening and weekend patrols were introduced as a direct result of an internal inquiry, following an escape attempt


which was spotted by an officer who happened to be in an upstairs cell when he saw inmates trying to climb the fence.
The removal of the senior officer from the segregation unit and the regular withdrawal of officers from the unit to meet staff shortages on wings means that more violent bullies will be sent back on to the wings, where they can operate a reign of terror over other inmates.
If officers are reduced, visitor searches cannot be adequate. Already there is an acute problem because there are no female officers at Castington, so searches of women visitors can be carried out only with police assistance. Drug-smuggling visitors are ready to take full advantage of this loophole and destroy Castington's much-commended record in stopping drugs from coming in.
Education, with a budget already cut by 35 per cent. since 1993, faces further cuts. Training workshops for painting and decorating and motor body repairs will close. Idle and discontented inmates are more likely to cause trouble inside the prison, and more likely to go out ready to commit further offences.
At Castington, as at Acklington, it should be remembered that the cuts do not follow a period of expansion. They follow several years of staff reductions which have already led to regular cancellation of cell searching, evening classes and gym sessions, and to the segregation unit being left undermanned. In fact, the cell search figures have not achieved the contract target. Shift systems depend on overtime, which is expensive and wasteful. The staff increases promised under fresh start did not happen, even though the efficiency savings intended to match them were achieved.
If the Minister is looking for areas in which savings could be made, she could look, for example, at doing more joint administration between Acklington and Castington. When two institutions are so close together, there must be some scope for increasing the amount of administrative work that is done jointly, without going into front-line operations in the way that I believe is being done.
The Government are prepared to spend about £28,000 a place on their boot camps scheme. Other young offenders institutions cost up to £24,000 a year per place. A place at Castington costs less than £15,000 a year—so why is Castington facing such severe cuts?
I beg the Minister to think again. I do not believe that she can defend this level of damage to widely commended regimes and programmes. She cannot justify threatening security, which is the No. 1 priority, by making reductions in key areas of control and discipline and by creating aimlessness by abandoning so much of the education, work and activity programme.
I do not intend to speculate about what could happen in Acklington and Castington if these cuts go ahead, but officers and staff on the front line have very real fears. They know just how great a cost, human as well as financial, can result from short-sighted cuts in the essentials of the custody system.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): May I first congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on

securing this Adjournment debate on two of the prisons in his constituency. I cannot say that I congratulate him on the seasonable hour that he has chosen, but I thank him for the courteous and constructive tone that he adopted during the debate. It may help the right hon. Gentleman if I offer to visit his two prisons. My timetable will not allow me to do so this side of the summer recess, but if he can spare a day in the summer recess to come with me, I shall be delighted to visit his prisons.
I shall deal with the specific issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised in a few minutes, but I must say that it is rather a pity that the Opposition parties seem to table items on the Prison Service only ever to draw attention to difficulties and perceived weaknesses. That gives the public the wrong impression of an increasingly efficient service, one which has in the past three years met its targets in increasingly difficult circumstances.
The difficult circumstances to which I refer include the ever-growing prison population, which today reached a new record of 54,045. That represents a 6.38 per cent. increase in the population since the end of April last year, and I have to add that the population is growing most rapidly in the north.
Despite this, on 12 April the Prison Service announced—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed alluded to it—that the degrading practice of slopping out has ended in all prisons in England and in Wales. In addition, no prisoners have been held in police cells since June 1995. Between April 1995 and February 1996, escapes fell by 59 per cent. compared to the same period in 1994–95, and by 78 per cent. compared to the same period in 1992–93. Assaults have also fallen by 8 per cent. on the 1994–95 figures over the same period.
The Prison Service is doing well on running positive regimes for prisoners in its custody, so that they now spend 8 per cent. more time in purposeful activity than in 1992–93. At the end of February 1996, 36 per cent. of prisoners were unlocked for more than 12 hours per weekday, compared to 24 per cent. at the end of March 1993—immediately before the Prison Service became an agency. Everyone who works in the Prison Service is to be congratulated on their efforts to achieve those targets and to maintain the high standards they represent.
I turn to the main thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's speech: the cost reduction strategy that is being applied to the Prison Service. Hon. Members will be aware that the Prison Service has been asked to achieve a 9.5 per cent. real-terms reduction in cost per place over the next three years. The Prison Service has responded to that request by drawing up a cost reduction strategy, and savings will need to be made across the service, including at headquarters and at central services.
Having heard the right hon. Gentleman, I need to set the record straight on a couple of issues. First, it is not true that the Prison Service has imposed cuts across the board without differentiating between those prisons that are already running efficiently and those that are not. In fact, Acklington prison is a good example of just the reverse—it is one of the most efficiently run category C prisons in the country.
Because of this, and the extra work that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons' report identified, the governor of Acklington was not required to make as significant savings as other and rather less efficient prisons. Indeed, an increase rather than a decrease in prison officer grades is planned at Acklington.
Secondly, let me put the terms "efficiency savings" and "cost reduction" in context. Efficiency savings can be made with little perceptible change to the regime. For example, by allowing prisoners to get up at 8.30 am at weekends rather than at 7.30 am, a governor would save the equivalent of two prison officer posts.
Thirdly, it is not helpful to suggest—as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed did—that security and control will suffer as a result of these measures. A major part of the cost reduction strategy is for governors to look at the way work is done in their prisons and by whom it is done, to ensure that trained prison officers are deployed where they will be most effective—in contact with the prisoners.
Jobs that do not involve contact with prisoners can then be carried out by civilians. This means that levels of supervision can be maintained—indeed, improved—while ensuring that the required efficiency savings are made. For example, at Acklington the governor has gone through this process, and has decided that, by flattening management structures, sharpening the operational line and introducing civilians into the prison's services, he can afford seven additional prison officers—the grade of staff that has the most direct supervision of prisoners.
Fourthly, I assure the right hon. Member and his constituents that cost reductions will not put prisoners, staff or the local public at increased risk in the event of a major incident. The Prison Service has tried and tested contingency plans to deal with such events, and has a system of mutual aid under which, in the event of an incident at a prison, staff from neighbouring prisons are called to assist until the situation is under control.
I welcome the suggestion that Acklington and Castington should share facilities to help provide quality services to both prisons efficiently. I can tell the House that this is already the case at Acklington and Castington, where one health care team and one works department serve both prisons. Sharing the facilities is one of the strategies recommended by the Prison Service to its governors, and the operational director for the north has asked his area managers to explore where that can be done in their areas.
Thus the area manager for the north-east is actively examining other ways in which Acklington and Castington might share facilities.

Mr. Beith: In that case, how will the gap be filled that will be left when the five prison officers in the health care team are removed as, to quote the document, "surplus to requirements"?

Miss Widdecombe: If health services are shared, there is room for increasing economies of scale and increasing rationalisation.
I shall now discuss staff losses. The right hon. Gentleman asked what staff would be lost at each prison as a result of the savings. Castington will lose 10 uniformed staff posts and seven support staff posts in the next two years. Some of those losses will be achieved by natural wastage, others by not filling vacancies when they arise, and the remaining reductions will probably be achieved through the Prison Service's voluntary early retirement and severance package.
The cost reduction strategy at Castington will result in a reduction in regime activities in the prison, but steps have been taken to minimise the effect of those reductions by, for example, the planned introduction of part-time education to ensure that as many prisoners as possible continue to have access to education.
I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman also expressed fears that bullying will increase as a result of cost reductions. The governor of Castington has informed me that manning levels in the residential and employment areas remain unchanged by his plans, and that he therefore does not expect any increase in bullying. Indeed, it is important, when talking about staff reductions, that we take account of where staff reductions will apply. If they do not apply on the wings and the landings, that is clear evidence that control and involvement with prisoners will remain at current levels.
Castington has had a bullying strategy since July 1995, part of which is to monitor trends in bullying and respond as necessary. I am sure that that process will continue, and that, in the unlikely event of an increase in bullying—or other misbehaviour—as a result of cost reduction, the governor and his team will take steps to tackle it.
At Acklington, two principal officer posts and four senior officer posts will be lost, but as there will be an additional seven prison officers to undertake group work with prisoners and security-related tasks, the effects of that reduction will be minimised.
The right hon. Gentleman's objections to the cost reduction strategy and the objections of the local Prison Officers Association do not seem to have taken into account that increase of the grade that has the most direct impact on supervision of prisoners and thus their secure and controlled custody. There will also be alterations in the way that support staff's tasks are staffed, including moves towards the use of civilians in catering and health care, which will allow quality of service to be maintained at reduced costs.
Part of Acklington's cost reduction strategy is to reduce hours of education available to prisoners, but it is important to emphasise that that has been done by cutting from the curriculum only those classes that were under-subscribed and could be seen as "non-essential". That has meant that it has been possible to allocate additional hours to core subjects that will most benefit prisoners on their release, while making a significant saving.
It is not anticipated at present that workshop hours will be affected. Indeed, workshop hours are currently showing an improvement, following the introduction of the incentives and earned privileges scheme in January 1996.
I can assure the House that the cost reduction strategies at both prisons have been devised carefully, bearing in mind the differential in the scope for economies at each establishment. The maintenance of good security and control has been at the forefront of the minds of the area managers and of the two governors as they have planned their approaches to cost reductions in each establishment.
I fear that the right hon. Gentleman's approach to the subject mirrors the simplistic approach often adopted to cost reductions: that they will mean a reduction in essential services. We must maintain good security and control. That is best achieved by ensuring that there is adequate direct supervision of prisoners and by maintaining officer presence on wings and on landings.
It is important to retain good regimes for the purposes of rehabilitation. Although education, for example, may have to be trimmed, that is very different from hacking into it wholesale. If cost-effective courses that serve many prisoners must be expanded at the expense of more costly courses that serve only a few prisoners, that is a reasonable reaction, which will not impact upon the quality of the existing regimes.

Mr. Beith: I seek the Minister's assurance on two points. First, where security measures have been recommended in either inspection or internal inquiry reports, will she ensure that they are not removed as a result of cost reductions? I refer, for example, to yard and perimeter night patrols. Secondly, will she confirm that action will be taken about the lack of female officers at Castington? Will she ensure that vital searching procedures are not impaired by the continuing absence of female officers?

Miss Widdecombe: I can provide assurances on both points—although perhaps not in the terms that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. Essential security will not be compromised, and necessary security measures will not be withdrawn. Both governors must make quite certain that security and control are leading considerations when implementing the cost reductions.
As to the question of searching, I accept that there is a lack of female staff, and I acknowledge that the balance is not ideal in terms of the tasks that must be carried out. Nevertheless, both prisons have made positive efforts to recruit female staff, and they will redouble those efforts during the next recruitment drive.
Prison officers must also concentrate on security methods other than direct searching of visitors. For example, visitors can be refused access, and prisoners who are found in possession of unauthorised articles may be put on closed visits and supervised closely. A number of security measures may be implemented to ensure that we supervise visits as much as possible, watch prisoner movements and take appropriate action—including prosecution—when necessary.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that, even if we are not able to produce the numbers of female staff we require immediately, we will take seriously the main thrust of his remarks about the adequacy of searching procedures and overall visitor control.
I am grateful for the support that I have received from both prison governors and from area management in preparing for the debate, and I look forward to a fruitful visit to Castington and Acklington, accompanied by the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Two o'clock.